^^ 



^-6 



^' .0- 















,V^ 









o. 






\ 1 * ^ '/ 



<<. C^^ -^^ '■ V *■' - -'^ 



s 



.\v 






Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2010 with funding from 
The Library of Congress 



http://www.archive.org/details/selfverifyingchrOOschm 



A SELF-VERIFYING 

CHRONOLOGICAL HISTORY 



ow 



Ancient Egypt 

THE FOUNDATION OF THE KINGDOM 

TO 

THE BEGINNING OF THE PERSIAN 
DYNASTY 

a isoofe of Startling mm'bttit^ 

BY 

ORLANDO P. SCHMIDT 




CINCINNATI, O.: 

GEORGE C. SHAW 
1900 



TWO COPIES RECEIVED, 

Library of Cen»r«tfc 
Offle. of th, ^ 

NOV 1 7 im 

Reglsttr of Copyright*. 



COPYRIGHT, 1899, 
BY ORLANDO P. SCHMIDT. 



PRESS OF 

CURTS & JENNINGS, 

CINCINNATI, O. 



51684 



SeUJWO COPVi 






PREFACE 

In the Preface, we naturally expect the author to 
tell us something about his work and himself. I will 
avail myself of this time-honored privilege merely to 
say a few words about the work. As the title indi- 
cates, it is a self-verifying chronological history of 
ancient Egypt, from the foundation of the kingdom 
to the beginning of the Persian Dynasty. It covers 
a vast period of 3,700 years, much of which was here- 
tofore comparatively unknown and unexplored. This 
field was hastily explored, usually at off -times, within 
the space of a few years. Armed with the ''key" to 
the marvelous chronological system of the ancient 
Egyptians, which a fortuitous discovery had placed 
in my hands, I entered into a lost world, all recollec- 
tion of which had died out, and there made a series 
of discoveries, and gathered together a great mass of 
new historical facts, the startling and far-reaching im- 
portance of which it would be almost impossible to 
estimate. When I first crossed the threshold of this 
terra incognita, I naturally entertained many of the 
views and opinions concerning the Egyptians and 
their religion, science, and civilization, common to 
modern Egyptologists in general. Some of the errors 
and superstitions regarding the Egyptians, which 
were current among so-called "scientists," were of 
such a preposterous nature, that my native common 
sense recoiled from them instinctively; but there were 

3 



4 Preface 

others, which were of such a subtle character, and so 
deeply rooted, and so thoroughly interwoven with 
the terms, phraseology, and modes of expression in 
common use among all classes of readers, that I found, 
and still find, it almost impossible to completely free 
my mind from their disturbing influences. 

The greater part of this book was written while 
the researches were being made. The author's point 
of view was constantly changing. The horizon was 
constantly widening. Each new discovery, each new 
fact brought to light, served to dispel the clouds and 
mists which hung over, and obscured from view, some 
of the most important periods of Egyptian history. 

A book written under such circumstances natu- 
rally lacks uniformity and logical continuity. Al- 
though it was completed about a year ago, I could 
not persuade myself to publish it in its present form, 
but hoped to find the necessar}^ time and leisure to 
remold it from beginning to end. This hope, I regret 
to say, has not been realized. The discoveries, how- 
ever, are of such a nature, that I would not be justified 
in longer withholding them from the world. The 
value of the facts made public must be my excuse 
for the form in which they now appear. 

It is due to the reader to state, that it has been 
my earnest endeavor throughout to get down to the 
bottom facts. Prior to the date of the so-called 
Flood (2348 B. C.) these "bottom facts" exist, and 
can be found, in Egypt alone. Wherever we succeed 
in striking "bottom facts," we have evidence of the 
most convincing character, evidence which can not 



Preface 5 

be successfully contradicted, evidence which may be 
said to verify itself. For example, the Great Sphinx, 
the pyramids, such as those of Nuterachi, Senoferu, 
Chufu, etc., the mastabas, reaching back to those of 
Sheri and Amten, the hieroglyphical inscriptions 
found in the recently opened pyramids of Unas, Teta, 
Meri-ra Pepa, Menthusuphis I, etc., the contemporary 
inscriptions of Una, Hirchuf, Aahmes, etc., the tombs 
and cofhns of the Antefs, the statues of the Hyksos 
kings, the Table of Abydus, the Tablet of Four Hun- 
dred Years, the Turin Papyrus, etc., constitute what 
might be called the "best" evidence, that is, evidence 
of such convincing and unimpeachable character that 
no number of modern authorities could add to its 
weight or credibility. 

For this reason, I did not deem it necessary to 
encumber the text with a mass of miscellaneous cita- 
tions from so-called "authorities," and thereby 
weaken the effect of the facts presented. 

The Sothiac system of chronology is so nicely ad- 
justed in all its parts, so perfect as a whole, that no 
one who has made himself acquainted with its prac- 
tical workings will deny that it is mathematically 
accurate, self-registering, and self-verifying — a mar- 
velous piece of mechanism indeed. 

Now, as modern Egyptologists, one and all, con- 
tend that the Egyptians were altogether ignorant of 
the science of chronology, it will be seen that I can 
not use them as authorities, for my discoveries place 
me in direct opposition to them. 

It was not so with Champollion and Lepsius. 



Preface 



These great pioneers in the science of Egyptology 
started out upon the right road. But, unfortunately, 
superficial skepticism has taken the place of scientific 
criticism. The attempt has been made to apply the 
Darwinian theory of evolution to the development of 
Egyptian civilization, during the first half of the his- 
torical period. This has led many Egyptologists to 
belittle and misrepresent the civilization of Egypt 
prior to the beginning of the Fourth Dynasty. They 
tell us flat-footed that the first three dynasties of 
Manetho were "mythical," and not historical, and 
thus with one fell swoop blot out and destroy five 
hundred and sixty-four years of well-authenticated 
history. 

As we shall see, Egyptian civilization was fully 
developed at least six hundred years before the foun- 
dation of the kingdom, and the Egyptians themselves, 
from the earliest times, assure us, with one accord, 
that they derived it, in all its perfection, from their 
ancestors, the venerated "manes," or achiii. 

A century has rolled by since the discovery of the 
celebrated Rosetta-stone, but the work of decipher- 
ing, translating, and interpreting the great stone book 
of ancient Egypt has not yet been completed. 

Who can foretell how long the additional facts 
now brought to light will occupy the theologians and 
men of science of the century to come? Here are the 
long-lost facts which constitute the background of 
the historical events allegorically described in the 
opening chapters of Genesis; fragments, it is true, 
but priceless, nevertheless. The discovery that Noah, 



Preface 7 

Shem, Ham, and Japheth are Egyptian and not He- 
brew words, for example, may, at first view, appear 
comparatively unimportant, but who can foresee the 
ultimate results to which it may lead? Scientists 
will have to account for the remarkable coincidence 
between the date of the Hyksos Expulsion and the 
date of Jacob's birth. 

■ It would be a great mistake to suppose that these 
facts affect Egyptian and Bible history only. The 
coming historians of ancient Greece and Rome will 
be called upon to account for the well-attested facts, 
that the lonians (la-nini) were settled in the Grecian 
Archipelago and on the adjoining shores of Greece 
and Asia Minor as far back as the reign of Teta, or 
3146 B. C; and that the Sardinians, Sicilians, Acha- 
ians, and other Mediterranean nations invaded Egypt 
by land and by sea during the reign of Menophthah 
in the year 1491 B. C, or just before the Exodus, 
and during the reign of Ramesses HI, or about 1417 
B.C. 

In the pictorial representations we see these na- 
tions clad and armed like the heroes of Homer, and, 
further, that the vessels in which they crossed the 
"Great Green" (Ua2-ur) Water (Wasser) were skill- 
fully and artistically made. Many theories and no- 
tions which have come down to us from men who 
believed that writing was unknown in the times of 
Moses and Homer, that the ancient Egyptians were 
Hamites, or came from the fabled land of Puon-et, that 
the lyatins and lonians emigrated from the uninhab- 
itable table-land of Aria shortly before the Trojan 



8 Preface 

War, etc., will have to yield to the inexorable logic 
of new and unexpected facts. Again, those Assyri- 
ologists who have published to the world artificial 
and fanciful chronologies of ancient Babylonia, will 
be forced to explain how that kingdom, which was 
founded by Nimrod, the son of Kush, could antedate 
the Hamite invasion of Western Asia, and why the 
native Babylonian historian Berossus did not carry 
his actual chronology beyond 2348 B. C, the date of 
that great calamity. The reader will see who, or 
what, the Biblical Ham really was, and that Egypt, 
during the two hundred and forty-two years which 
intervened between the Twelfth Dynasty and the 
Hyksos Invasion, was the school in which he and his 
brothers, Shem and Japheth, were educated. 

A literal Flood has served as an impenetrable cur- 
tain behind which nearly two thousand years of thrill- 
ing and eventful history in ancient Egypt prior to 
the Hamite Invasion of 2348 B. C. was concealed 
from view. This book removes the curtain, and re- 
veals the historical facts underlying the beautiful alle- 
gories, symbols, and figures of Genesis; in fact, it 
abounds in startling discoveries of the most profound 
significance relating to the earliest history of civilized 
man. 

Eet no one think, because I have been compelled 
to assail some of the theories advanced by modern 
Egyptologists, that I do not fully appreciate the gran- 
deur and importance of the work they have accom- 
plished. On the contrary, I regard it, beyond a 
doubt, as one of the grandest achievements of the 



Preface 9 

human intellect. In the galaxy of immortal scientists, 
none shine with a brighter light than Champollion, 
Lepsius, Bunsen, de Rouge, Brugsch, and Maspero. 
They were banded together in the cause of science 
and truth, which the Egyptians symbolized and per- 
sonified as Thoth and Maat, and I am satisfied that 
no one will be more ready to accept the truth and 
discard old errors than those who still survive. The 
world is indebted to them; how much more so must 
I be. 

To my friend, L. A. Wood, author of a remark- 
able work, yet unpubHshed, entitled "The Trial and 
Test of the Gods in Egypt," to whom I communi- 
cated many of these discoveries at, or about, the times 
they were respectively made, I am indebted for many 
valuable hints and suggestions. In fact, he is the 
only person known to me who seems to have any- 
thing like a true conception of the religion of the 
ancient Egyptians, that is, their wonderful doctrine 
of "Life." 

Although the Egyptians engraved the mystic 
words, "the Way {uae), the Truth (maat), and the 
Life (anch),'^ in imperishable granite, Egyptologists 
have persistently closed their eyes to the fact ; but the 
author of "Osirian Christianity" has not done so. 

I also wish to acknowledge my indebtedness to 
my wife, to whom this work is gratefully dedicated, 
for valuable assistance in its preparation. 

ORIvANDO p. SCHMIDT. 

Mapi^ehurst, Ke;nton Co., Kentucky, \ 
July 19, 1899. j 



INTRODUCTION 

Modern Egyptologists, after vainly attempting 
to work out a consistent system of chronology for 
ancient Egypt, have abandoned the task in despair. 
This has been briefly pointed out in the chapter 
headed, "Present State of Egyptian Chronology." 

Instead of frankly admitting this, however, some 
of them have resorted to the questionable expedient 
of trying to put the blame upon the ancient Egyp- 
tians, charging that they were ignorant of the science 
of chronology, and, consequently, had no chronology, 
or chronological system. Thus all of the otherwise 
excellent histories of ancient Egypt lack a chrono- 
logical basis, or support. The maximum and mini- 
mum dates for the accession of Mena, the first king 
of Egypt, for example, differ fully two thousand years. 
This confusion is not confined to the Old Empire 
alone, but undermines and honeycombs the entire 
structure down to the beginning of the reign of 
Psammetichos. None of these histories gives us one 
solitary date during this period of 3,579 years, which 
is correct. The trouble is steadily growing, instead 
of diminishing, and the latest chronologies, when 
compared with those of Bunsen and Eepsius, are 
simply preposterous. 

Now this work is merely a chronological, not a 
general, history of ancient Egypt, and, as its primary 
object was to supply what is wanting, restore what 



1 2 Ijstrod uction 



has been lost — not to copy, or simply repeat, what 
is already familiar to every student of ancient his- 
tory — the chronological element has been naturally 
forced into the foreground. But the reader may ask : 
''Why do you attach so much importance to an accu- 
rate and reliable chronology? Is it not a dry and 
uninteresting subject at best?" My answer to these 
questions is, that history without an adequate chro- 
nological support is little better than fiction, is like 
music without time; in a word, chaos and discord. 
Chronology is dry and uninteresting only when sepa- 
rated from the historical events to which it relates; as, 
for instance, in chronological tables drawn up for 
ready reference, but never when used as the legiti- 
mate basis, backbone, prop, and support of history. 
In order to see how indispensable chronology is 
to reliable history, the reader is requested to examine 
the latest histories of Rawlinson, Brugsch, Wiedeman, 
Maspero, or Petrie with reference to the following 
special periods, to wit: 

1. The 350 years of the first "ten Thinite Kings," 
from the accession of Mena (4244 B. C.) to the be- 
ginning of the first Memphite Dynasty (3894 B. C.) 

2. The 214 years between 3894 B. C. and 3680 
B. C, during which the Memphite Kings of the Third 
Dynasty and the Thinite Kings of the Second Dy- 
nasty reigned side by side. 

3. The 148 years which intervened between the 
downfall of the Old Empire (2948 B. C.) and the be- 
ginning of the Twelfth Dynasty, or Middle Empire 
(2800 B. C.) 



Introduction 13 



4. The 242 years between the close of the Twelfth 
Dynasty (2590 B. C.) and the so-called Hyksos In- 
vasion (2348 B. C.) 

5. The 511 years of so-called Hyksos domination 
over Egypt, including the 259 years and 10 months 
of the Seventeenth, or Hyksos, Dynasty. 

6. The 22)^ years of the actual Nineteenth Dy- 
nasty, beginning with Ramesses II Miamen, and end- 
ing at the Sothiac Era, 1324 B. C. 

7. The 185 years of the Twentieth Dynasty, end- 
ing 1139B. C. 

8. The 220 years of the Twenty-second Dynasty, 
ending 789 B. C. 

9. The 65 years of the contemporaneous Twenty- 
fourth and Twenty-fifth Dynasties, beginning 730 
B. C, and ending 665 B. C. 

The reader will find that the first two of these 
periods (erroneously estimated at 779, instead of 564, 
years) are characterized as "mythical," and treated 
accordingly. 

A lot of so-called "myths" is served up to the 
reader, instead of historical facts. 

The third period (supposed to cover 849 instead 
of 148 years) is in hopeless confusion and obscurity, 
little better, indeed, than chaos. Petrie even ventures 
to place the Hyk-sat-u (Hyksos) King "Achian" here. 

The fourth and fifth periods are in an equally 
chaotic condition. The Thirteenth and Fourteenth 
Dynasties are regarded as successive, when, in fact, 
they were contemporaneous, and the sub-totals which 
have been ignorantly substituted for the original 



14 Introduction 



totals of these dynasties are accepted as genuine and 
correct, and the ridiculous attempt is soberly made to 
squeeze 136 kings and 937 years into a period of 242 
years. The Hyksos Dynasty, which came in 251 
years after the Hamite Invasion of Egypt, or 2097 
B. C, is either placed at the beginning of the Hyksos 
period of 511 years, or about 100 years after it, so 
that, in the nature of things, nothing definite, certain, 
or reliable can be expected here. 

When we reach the Eighteenth Dynasty, there is 
but little improvement. Egyptologists still cling to 
the date 1648 B. C, as an absolute beginning point 
for this dynasty, as a drowning man clings to a straw, 
and they cut down and bend and twist the numbers, 
reigns, and dates in vain attempts to make them con- 
form to, and harmonize with, this date, which can be 
traced to a silly blunder made by Josephus. The 
Nineteenth, Twentieth, and Twenty-second Dynas- 
ties have suffered most from these unwarranted 
changes. In fact, the Nineteenth and Twenty-second 
Dynasties have been almost blotted out. The last 
period above-named, although comparatively recent, 
is in an equally chaotic condition. The epoch-title 
'^Rokchoris" does service as an actual king who was 
taken and burnt alive by the Ethiopian King Sabako. 
Tarako and Sabako appear upon the scene inter- 
changeably, and their reigns are made to overlap and 
interfere in a most inexplicable way, so that the reader 
is completely bewildered and mystified. The native 
kings, Tephnachtis, Nechepsos, and Nechao, float 
around in mihihus without a place or date. 



Introduction^ 15 



The above instances have been singled out at ran- 
dom, but every dynasty during the entire period of 
3579 years is more or less affected by the doubt and 
uncertainty, not to speak of the errors, which are due 
to the absence of a reliable chronology. When 
Egyptologists bound themselves down to the a priori 
assumption that the ancient Egyptians were unac- 
quainted with the science of chronology, and had no 
chronological system or era, they necessarily barred 
the way to further progress; for no sane man would 
seek for that which he thinks he knows does not exist. 
Here again we see the fatal effects of errors intro- 
duced more than 1,800 years ago. When Josephus, 
contended that before Abram came into Egypt the 
Egyptians were unacquainted with arithmetic and the 
science of astronomy, and that Abram himself com- 
municated to them these parts of knowledge (see 
Antiquities, Book I, Ch. 8, Sec. 2), he certainly viewed 
the subject from the Roman and Hebrew, or, I might 
say, Asiatic standpoint; for he betrays no knowledge 
of Egyptian affairs prior to the date of Abram. But 
when modern Egyptologists undertake to build sys- 
tems upon such false and thoroughly-exploded con- 
tentions, they are altogether inexcusable. 

"Truth is stranger than fiction." At the begin- 
ning of the kingdom, or as far back as 4244 B. C, the 
Egyptians had the most accurate system of chro- 
nology ever devised by the ingenuity of man. It 
sounds like the irony of fate to say that this system 
was purely and strictly astronomical. In a word, 
they had and used the marvelous, self-verif5ang, 



1 6 Introd uction 



self-registering system of chronology known as the 
"Sothiac." 

While I am free to admit that the Sothiac system, 
with its peculiar and distinctive nomenclature, titles, 
etc., presents a number of formidable-looking diffi- 
culties to the general student, yet I am convinced 
that any one can easily master it by carefully perusing 
the first part of this work. A general knowledge of 
the Sothiac system is also indispensable to a correct 
understanding of the much-abused chronological lists 
of the celebrated Egyptian priest and historian, 
Manetho. These lists were copied by Manetho from 
the ancient registers preserved in the temples of 
( Egypt, and, before they were systematically changed 
^i and falsified by the early Jewish and Christian chro- 
nographers, were as accurate and reliable as the cele- 
brated astronomical "Canon of Ptolemy." The frag- 
ments of the Turin papyrus still show that these an- 
cient registers reached back to the earliest times. The 
reigns of Mena and his successors upon the throne 
were carefully registered in years, months, and days, 
and (what is equally important) were accurately ad- 
justed to the Sothiac eras and epochs. The epoch- 
reigns, identified by appropriate epoch-titles, enable 
us to readjust the separate reigns to absolute dates, 
astronomically fixed, and thus restore the chronology 
upon a reliable basis. 

Unfortunately, the breaks in the Turin papyrus 
were of such a nature as to destroy many of the epoch- 
reigns; but several of them, like that of lan-ab-ra of 
the Fifteenth Dynasty (2064 B. C.) have escaped in- 



Introduction 17 



tact, while others are indicated by parts of the stereo- 
typed formula, ''ari-en-ef em suteniu." 

The Sothiac system is fully explained in Part I of 
this work; but it can do no harm to add a word or two 
by way of introduction. The ordinary or vague year 
of 365 days (being about six hours short), shifted or 
receded one day in four years, one month in 120 
years, and one entire year in 1,461 vague years. The 
Sothiac year grew out of, and was based on, this reg- 
ular shifting of the vague year. Thus a Sothiac day 
was equal to four years, a Sothiac month to 120 years, 
a Sothiac year to 1,461 years. There were twelve 
Sothiac months of 120 years each, to the last of which 
(Mesori) twenty years were added. These twenty 
years corresponded to the five intercalary days of the 
ordinary year. 

A Sothiac year, therefore, consisted of 365 Sothiac 
days of four years each, or 1,460 fixed years. The 
heliacal rising of the Dog-star Sirius, called Sothis 
(Sopdet) by the Egyptians, regulated the Sothiac year. 
Thus the 120 years during which Sothis rose heliac- 
ally in the month of Thoth of the vague year, con- 
stituted the Sothiac month of Thoth. 

In the fixed year, as we shall see, Sothis rose 
heliacally, in the latitude of Heliopolis, on the first 
day of Pharmuthi, which is about July 19th; and the 
first day of Thoth, or the beginning of the year, coin- 
cided with the winter solstice. When Sothis rose 
heliacally on the first day of Pharmuthi of the vague 
year, which was the case in the years 4864 B. C, 
3404 B. C, 1944 B. C, and 484 B. C, the year was 



1 8 Introd uction 



normal; but when Mena mounted the throne, for in- 
stance, it had shifted 155 days, so that Sothis rose on 
the first day of Thoth, which was Hkewise the first day 
of the year. These 155 days represent exactly 620 
years. This rising of Sirius on the first day of Thoth, 
4244 B. C, marked the date of the establishment of 
the kingdom, and likewise the end of the 1255 years 
of the ''manes," or saints (achiu). 

The practical working of the system may be pro- 
visionally illustrated by the epoch-reign of Amene- 
mes I, who came about one cycle, or 1,460 years, 
after Menes. It came to pass that Sothis rose heliac- 
ally, that is, just before the sun, on the first day of 
Thoth, in the seventeenth year of the reign of this 
king. The great automatic, self-registering time- 
piece of Egypt indicated that 1,460 years had elapsed 
since Mena became king. Thus, after Amenemes I 
had reigned sixteen years (it should be fifteen or 
sixteen years, x months and x days) the Sothiac 
month of Mesore (and a Sothiac cycle likewise) came 
to a close, and the Sothiac month of Thoth (and a 
new Sothiac cycle likewise) opened. This important 
event happened in the year 2784 B. C. Amenemes I 
reigned sixteen years before, and thirteen years after, 
this date — in all, twenty-nine years. 

This much is simple enough; but the epoch-titles 
assumed by, or conferred on, these epoch-kings pre- 
sent more difficulty. As we shall see, the government 
of Egypt was modeled after the solar system. Pha- 
raoh claimed to be the successor, or vicegerent on 
earth, of Ra, or the sun. It was assumed that he ruled 



Intr OD UCTION 1 9 



the world as Ra rules the solar system. He was the 
central orb, giving light, life, stability, happiness, etc., 
to all peoples. He assumed the titles of Ra, and, in 
the symbolical language of those times, thie ruling 
powers, with Pharaoh at their head, constituted the 
^'heaven,'' just as the subject people constituted the 
"earth." 

Again, according to the cosmic theory of the 
Egyptians, nothing came into existence except by 
generation of male and female parents, etc. Thus 
primeval Ra, after throwing off, or giving birth to, 
the planets Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Earth, Venus, and 
Mercury, grew old and passed away, and was suc- 
ceeded by Horus, or the present sun. In the ordinary 
and Sothiac years, Horus, as Harpokrates {Har-pa- 
chrat) or *'Horus, the Babe," was born at the winter 
solstice, or beginning of the year; became physically 
developed, as Har-ka-nacht, "Horus, the powerful 
Bull," at the vernal equinox; reached his intellectual 
perfection, as Ra, at the summer solstice, or "heart" 
of the year; and eventually grew old (as) and very old 
(as-as), as Tum, Atum, or Osiris, at the autumnal 
equinox. From the vernal equinox to the autumnal 
equinox he was in the upper hemisphere, or sphere of 
light; but from the autumnal equinox to the vernal 
equinox he was in the lower hemisphere, or sphere 
of darkness. Now, as the sun of the Sothiac year 
reached the winter solstice in the seventeenth year of 
the reign of King Amenemes I, he assumed the title 
Nem-mestu, meaning "Re-born," in commemoration 
of his birth as Harpokrates. His position at the head 



20 Introduction 



of a new Sothiac year is indicated by the title Amen- 
em-het, or "Amen at the head." 

But as he became identified with the Sothiac 
month presided over by Thoth, he received another 
distinctive epoch-title, to wit: Petithothis {Pa-ta- 
tahu-ti) or "The Gift of Thoth.'^ 

It is significant that the title assumed by Mena, 
one complete cycle earlier, related to the Sothiac 
month alone, for Athothis is the Egyptian Aa-tahu-ti, 
having the meaning "Hermogenes," or "Offspring 
of Thoth." 

Now let us explain what we mean by an "epoch- 
reign." Kebahu, the last king of Manetho's First Dy- 
nasty, reigned twenty-six years, of which three were 
before, and twenty-three after, the epoch of Athyr, 
4004 B. C. His epoch-reign survives in the Lists of 
Manetho as "Uennephis" with twenty-three years. 
As we shall see, Uennephis is taken from Uon-nofer, 
"Perfect Being," or "Perfect One," a distinctive title 
of Osiris, the consort of Hathor or Isis. Eratos- 
thenes, however, used the reign before the epoch as 
the epoch-reign. Usertasen II and Usertasen III 
reigned together jointly for many years. Eratos- 
thenes grouped the two reigns together as fifty-five 
years. It happened that the thirty-eight years of 
Usertasen III were equally divided by the epoch of 
Paophi, 2664 B. C. Eratosthenes had them ruling as 
Hermes and Herakles, that is, in the Sothiac months 
of Thoth and Paophi, for fifty-five years; but he also 
had Usertasen III reigning as Phuoro, or Nile, for 
nineteen years, which is his reign before the epoch 



Intro D uction 2 1 



2664 B. C, or the beginning of the month of Pa-hapi, 
or The Nile. 

It will be seen from the foregoing illustrations 
that we must endeavor to make ourselves acquainted 
with the primitive arrangement and division of the 
year, the names and symbols of the months and 
seasons, and the attributes and titles of the so-called 
deities who were supposed to preside over the same. 

We must also examine the peculiar religious no- 
tions of the Egyptians, in connection with their theory 
of the formation and government of the solar system. 

Manetho and his chronological lists necessarily 
come in for a share of our attention, for the lists were 
copied from the ancient registers, and, while we are 
enabled to restore and verify them by means of the 
Sothiac system, they, in turn, reflect a bright light 
upon the practical application of the system. The 
chronological numbers of Josephus have been briefly 
considered, because they were the indirect cause of 
the arbitrary changes and alterations made in Mane- 
tho's lists by the early Jewish and Christian chronog- 
raphers, and as such enable us to detect the same. 
All this the reader will find in Part I of this work, 
which is introductory to Part II, where the chrono- 
logical history from the foundation of the kingdom, 
4244 B. C, to the beginning of the Persian dynasty, 
525 B. C, that is, the work proper, will be found. 

The chronological part of the work, in which 
grand-totals, like the 3,555 years from the beginning 
of the Third Dynasty to the end of Nektanebos' 
reign; sub-totals, like the 453 years of Theban, and 



22 Introduction 



511 years of Hyksos, domination; dynastic totals, like 
the 263 years of the Eighteenth Dynasty; epoch- 
reigns, like the 2.2^ years of Seti I after 1584 B. C, and 
the separate reigns, combine to form a wonderfully 
harmonious structure, covering over 3,700 years of 
actual and well-authenticated history, amounts to a 
mathematical demonstration; and, as the reader will 
see, has been subjected to every conceivable test. 
The synchronisms afforded by the Bible narrative and 
by the histories of Babylonia, Assyria, Greece, etc., 
have been carefully applied, and, although Africanus 
and Eusebius have been criticised for attaching too 
m^uch importance to synchronisms, the remarkable 
results attained will speak for themselves. 

In the face of much nonsense written on the sub- 
ject, it is self-evident that no artificial chronological 
scheme could for one moment bear the "crucial 
test" of an absolute astronomical system, even in one 
particular, much less throughout its entire extent. 

The epoch-reigns of Zet, or Saites, Neko II, and 
Nechtharebes, at the very end of the scheme, are 
brilliant demonstrations of this. Every discovery 
which was made in Egypt, or came to the author's 
notice while the work was in progress, has tended to 
support, corroborate, or verify it. 

In conclusion, the reader is requested to bear in 
mind that the subject is novel and difficult, that the 
details and ramifications are myriad, and that the 
author has been able to derive but little assistance 
from other sources. 



PART I 

The Sothiac System of Chronology and the 
Chronological Lists of Manetho 



AN INTRODUCTORY STUDY 



PRIMITIVE ARRANGEMENT AND DIVISION 
OF THE YEAR 

The winter solstice is the scientific beginning- 
point of the year. The birth of Christ, or Christmas, 
should therefore be celebrated at this time. The old 
year dies, and the new year is born, when the sun, 
having reached his lowest point in the southern hemi- 
sphere, reverses his course. The name of the first 
month, January, is derived from Janus, a Roman, or 
Etruscan, god. The name, as now pronounced in 
English, is misleading. The correct pronunciation 
is ''yan-us," or, divested of the Latin termination its, 
"yan." We are told that Janus had two faces, look- 
ing in opposite directions; that the month of January 
was consecrated by offerings of meal, salt, frankin- 
cense, and wine, all of which had to be new; and that 
on the first of this month presents were exchanged 
and all enmities suspended. The temple of Janus 
stood near the Forum, but was in reality only an 

23 



24 ^ Self-Verifying Chronological 

arch, or gateway, facing east and west. It seems that 
no one has been able to discover the nature and origin 
of Janus; but the reader will have no difficulty in un- 
derstanding all about him when the meaning of the 
Egyptian an or ian^ which has come down to us in 
the familiar forms "lannus" and Pa-ian, has been ex- 
plained. 

The arrangement and division of the ancient 
Egyptian year was far more scientific than our own. 
Its beginning point was the winter solstice. Its cul- 
minating or turning point, called an or tan by the 
Egyptians, was the summer solstice. These two 
points were called "horns," and the name of one of 
them survives in Capricorn, ''the horn of the goat." 
The "northern horn" is now called Cancer, or Crab, 
which is symbolically the same as Ian. Compare the 
German "Wende" and the an of the word answer. 

The scientific division of the year was into four 
parts. This fourfold division was made by the winter 
solstice, vernal equinox, summer solstice, and au- 
tumnal equinox, represented respectively by the first 
day of the months of Thoth, Choiahk, Phamenoth, 
and Paoni, and coinciding approximately with De- 
cember 2 1 St, March 21st, June 21st, and September 
2 1 St of our mode of reckoning. 

The equinoxes also served to separate the upper 
and lower hemispheres. The upper hemisphere was 
symbolized as Har, or Horus; the lower as Set, or 
Seth; and it was but natural that the former was asso- 
ciated with light and goodness, the latter with dark- 
ness and evil. These conceptions were old and al- 



History of Ancient Egypt 25 



ready crystallized when the "Pyramid Texts" of Unas, 
Tela, and the Pepas were engraved, about 3146 B. C. 

The same idea controlled the arrangement of the 
day, in which the horizon took the place of the equa- 
tor, and in which midnight was the winter solstice, 
sunrise the vernal equinox, noon the turning point, or 
''wende," and sunset the autumnal equinox. 

The life of man, from birth to death, served to 
illustrate the course of the sun alike in the day and 
the year. At the winter solstice the sun was born as 
Har-pa-chratj or Harpokrates, "Horus the babe;" at 
the vernal equinox, or sunrise, he was Ka-necht, "the 
powerful bull;" at the summer solstice, or noon, he 
was Ra, that is, fully matured physically and intellect- 
ually; and at the autumnal equinox, or sunset, he was 
Turn, Atum, and Osiris. These distinctive names were 
varied by numerous other poetical and symbolical 
titles, which are quite confusing to the beginner, many 
of which will be commented on and explained in this 
work. 

It seems that each of these four divisions of the 
year was presided over by one of the so-called "gods" 
or personifications. I was first led to this conviction 
after examining the astronomical tablet misnamed 
"Stela of Cheops' Daughter," published in Maspero's 
"Dawn of Civilization." The tablet is divided into 
four horizontal sections, the uppermost of which con- 
tains five standards, to wit: the ibis, or Thoth; the 
sparrow-hawk, or Horus; two wolves, or jackals, or 
the twins; that is, the double-faced Janus of the sum- 
mer solstice; and the mummy Osiris. As the eminent 



26 A Self-Verifying Chronological 

Egyptologist, Maspero, has spoken of this tablet, as 
follows : 

"One would like to possess some of those copper 
and golden statues which the Pharaoh Cheops con- 
secrated to Isis in honor of his daughter. Only 
a representation of them upon a stela has come down 
to us" — my unsupported opinon might not have 
weighed much with the general public, but, fortu- 
nately, the spade has turned up the missing evidence 
in ancient Babylonia, where it lay buried for centu- 
ries. I now notice, for the first time, in Smith's 
"Assyrian Discoveries," page 404, etc., that an as- 
tronomical tablet shows the following "method of ar- 
ranging the year :" 

"i. From the ist day of Adar to the 30th day of 
lyyar, the sun is fixed in the season of the great god- 
dess and the time of showers and warmth. 

"2. From the ist day of Sivan to the 30th day of 
Ab, the sun is fixed in the season of Bel, and the time 
of the crops and heat. 

"3. From the ist day of Elul to the 30th day of 
Marchesuan, the sun is fixed in the season of An-u, 
and the time of showers and warmth. 

"4. From the ist day of Kislev to the 30th day of 
Sebat, the sun is fixed in the season of Hea, and the 
time of cold." 

Thus each of the four seasons in Babylonia had its 
tutelar deity. The Cushites brought this arrangement 
with them from Egypt, and it was but slightly modi- 
fied to suit the seasons of Babylonia. The first season, 
called the season of the ''great goddess," i. e., Isis, 



History of Ancient Egypt 27 

or Hathor, commenced at the vernal equinox, and 
corresponded to the Egyptian months of Choiahk, 
Tybi, and Amhir. The second season, or the season 
of Bel, commenced at the summer solstice, and cor- 
responded to the Egyptian months of Phamenoth, 
Pharmuthi, and Pachons. These months were sacred 
to Ra, who is here represented by the Babylonian Bel. 
In like manner, the season of Anu commenced at the 
autumnal equinox, and covered the Egyptian months 
of Pa-uon-i, Epiphi, and Mes-har-i, of which Turn, or 
Osiris, was the tutelar deity. The city of On, or AnUy 
was the ancient site of Osiris. The symbol, or hiero- 
glyph, which stands for Ami, is placed at the head of 
this season, and always marks the western horizon 
and autumnal equinox. 

The season of Hea commenced at the winter sol- 
stice. Hea was "the god who knew all things," the 
counterpart of Thoth. Thus we learn that each of the 
four divisions of the year had its appropriate symbol, 
the same represented on the so-called "Stela of 
Cheops' Daughter." 

By the side of the fourfold division of the year, 
which was strictly scientific, there was another divis- 
ion into three seasons of four months each, which 
originally corresponded approximately to the actual 
seasons in Egypt. There are really but three seasons 
in Egypt: the season of the inundation, when the 
valley of the Nile is an inland sea dotted with island- 
cities ; the field season, devoted to agriculture ; and the 
dry season, in which the grain is stowed away in an- 
ticipation of the next inundation. 



28 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

The first season was called the Sha-et season. The 
word sha-et means "field," and the hieroglyph with 
which it is written represents a field covered with 
growing plants. This season commenced, in the fixed 
year, at the winter solstice, and embraced the months 
Thoth, Paophi, Athyr, and Choiak. These names, 
however, were not given to the months originally. 
The primitive scientific enumeration was as follows: 
the first month of the Sha-et season, the second month 
of the Sha-et season, and so on to the fourth month 
of the Sha-et season. In the inscriptions, the months 
are invariably designated in this way, and never by 
their names. From the 21st of December to the 21st 
of April, the Egyptians were engaged in agricultural 
pursuits, and Egypt itself was a field teeming with 
crops and plant-life in general. Although this season 
was appropriately called the "Field Season," it did not 
actually begin immediately after the inundation, but 
was made to agree with the beginning of the year ac- 
cording to the scientific division. 

The second season was called the P'ru-et Season, 
from p'ru-et, p'ru-e, pWo, meaning "grain" or "gran- 
ary." The four months of this season were long after- 
wards named Tybi, Emhir (Mechir), Phamenoth, and 
Pharmuthi. Wilkinson rendered them in the Coptic : 
Tubeh, Emshir, Baramhat, and Baramudeh. 

This season was distinctively hot and dry. The 
fields, which had been verdant with luxuriant vege- 
tation, were now as parched and barren as the sur- 
rounding desert itself. The Nile was at its lowest 



History of Ancient Egypt 29 

stage, a succession of sluggish channels winding their 
way among sandbars. 

All that remained for the people to do was to store 
the harvests, particularly the grain, in the granaries, 
rendered "treasure cities" in the authorized version of 
Scriptures. A better, or more descriptive, name than 
P'ru-et, or PWo, could not have been devised for this 
season. 

The third season was called the She, that is, "Sea, 
or She-mou, season," which is equivalent to the high 
water, or inundation, season. This season comprised 
the months Pachons, Payni, Epiphi, and Mesori. 

The month of Pachons of the fixed year com- 
menced about the 21st of August. The Nile reaches 
its lowest stage about the 21st "of June, and then be- 
gins to rise at Elephantine, which is on the southern 
frontier of Egypt. It continues to rise for about one 
hundred days, at the end of which period, or about the 
1st of October, it reaches high-water mark, and 
resembles an inland She, or sea. After remaining 
stationary for some time, moistening and fertilizing 
the fields, it begins to slowly recede. The annual in- 
undation has been so often described in ancient and 
modern works, and is already so familiar to every class 
of readers, that we feel justified in omitting any further 
description of it, merely wishing to call attention to 
the fact that the season characterized by this remark- 
able phenomenon of nature was most appropriately 
named by the ancient Egyptians. 

Modern Egyptologists, disregarding the plain 



30 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

meaning of the hieroglyphs, have changed the field 
season into the water season, the grain season into 
the field season, and the water season into the dry 
season, in order to make them agree with their pre- 
conceived theories regarding the Egyptian year and 
seasons. The word She, or sea, for example, is fol- 
lowed by the three wave-lines, which stand for mou, 
"water," and are always used as the determinative for 
water. Thus there is no excuse for rendering it the 
dry season. 

When the Egyptian year was divided into these 
three seasons of four months each, Sothis, or Sirius, 
rose heliacally on the first day of Pharmuthi, of the 
vague year, which then coincided with the 19th of 
July. The first historical cycle and the beginning of 
Menes' reign date from 4244 B. C, when Sothis rose 
with the sun on the first day of Thoth. This fact 
demonstrates that the primitive arrangement and di- 
vision of the year was made long before Menes' reign, 
and certainly not later than 4864 B. C, during the 
1,255 years of the Ach-i-u, or "Saints," erroneously 
rendered "heroes." 

We have fixed the "Rising of Sothis" at, or about, 
the 19th of July, which is the mean date, and requires 
some explanation. When the year was divided, the 
center of Egyptian civilization was around the city of 
Anu, or On, afterwards called Heliopolis. Before the 
kingdom was founded, this city was the capital of the 
principality called Ta-dnu, "Land of On," and Ta-dn- 
nuf, "Ivand of the City of On." Tha-annut (or 



History of Aiscient Egypt 31 

Theanut, as it was pronounced in Lower Egypt), gave 
rise to the Greek forms "The-einites," ''Thenites," 
''Thynites," and ''Thinites," which led to the error of 
assuming that Mena came from the Httle town of This, 
near Abydos, in Upper Egypt. 

The absolute astronomical dates which will be es- 
tablished throughout the entire course of Egyptian 
history, from 4244 B. C, to 525 B. C, where we con- 
nect with the accurate astronomical *'Canon of 
Ptolemy," render it certain that the observations were 
made in the latitude of Heliopolis, and that Aim, and 
not This, was the capital, or center, when the division 
of the year was made. 

THE TWELVE MONTHS 

Long before 4244 B. C, when the kingdom was 
established, the Egyptians had divided their year into 
twelve months of thirty days each. Five intercalary 
days were added to the last month, Mesori, which, 
thus, had thirty-five days. This year of 365 days 
lacked about six hours of being complete. It was the 
so-called vague, or shifting, year, in common use 
among the Egyptians, the great, automatic, self- 
registering timepiece of the Sothiac year. For this 
reason, it was regarded as sacred, and preserved in- 
violate and unchanged. By the side of this vague year, 
there was, from time immemorial, a fixed year of 
365J days, carefully regulated by astronomical ob- 
servations, and notably by the heliacal rising of Sothis. 
The division of the year into twelve months of thirty 



32 A Self-Verifying Chronological 

days each, supplemented by a 'little month" of five 
intercalary days, was more scientific than might be 
supposed at first blush. It is a well-estabhshed fact that 
the motion of the earth around the sun is more rapid 
in winter than in summer. Hence there are but ninety 
days between the winter solstice and the vernal equi- 
nox, the dates of which are commonly fixed respect- 
ively at December 21st and March 21st. Placing the 
beginning of Thoth at the winter solstice, the first of 
Choiak would approximately coincide with the spring 
equinox. It is true that the beginning of Phamenoth, 
in the fixed year, did not exactly coincide with the 
summer solstice, but the agreement was close enough 
for all practical purposes. If we w^ere to place the be- 
ginning of January at the winter solstice, where it be- 
longs, the beginning of July would also be a day or 
two before the summer solstice. The practical advan- 
tage of uniform months of thirty days each would 
certainly outweigh these slight discrepancies. The 
great advantage of this arrangement of the year and 
months, from the Egyptian point of view, was the 
"Rising of Sothis" on or about the first day of 
Pharmuthi of the fixed year. Owing to his uniform 
brightness, Sirius, or Sothis, was at all times the most 
available fixed point in the heavens by reference to 
which the earth's position in her orbit could be easily 
determined. 

The names of the months are so important, in con- 
nection with their recession in the Sothiac year, that 
they will be now considered separately, beginning 
with Thoth. 



History of Ancient Egypt 33 

First Month of the Sha-et Season, called Thoth. 

The arrangement and division of the year, as 
handed down to the Egyptians from the prehistoric 
age, was purely scientific; hence it was ascribed to 
Thoth, the "Lord of Writings," the symbol and per- 
sonification of wisdom and science. 

The first month of the year, which was likewise the 
first month of the first season and first division of the 
year, was called Thoth. The Sothiac year, with which 
we are chiefly concerned, was regulated by the heliacal 
rising of Sirius. In the fixed year Sothis rose heliac- 
ally on the first day of Pharmuthi, and the winter sol- 
stice coincided with the first day of Thoth ; but it was 
almost the reverse of this in the Sothiac year. The 
''Rising of Sothis," on the first day of Thoth, marked 
the beginning of a new Sothiac year. This took place 
during the period covered by this work, in the years 
4244 B. C, 2784 B. C, and 1324 B. C. Each of these 
years, therefore, marks the beginning of a Sothiac 
year, or cycle, and constitutes an important era. 

As the Egyptian Government was patterned after 
the solar system, the king who happened to reign at 
the beginning of one of these epochs was regarded as 
an epoch-king, and received an appropriate epoch- 
title. Pharaoh was supposed to rule the world (two 
lands, two hemispheres, upper and lower hemispheres, 
etc.), as Horus did the planetary system, and was de- 
scribed as being in the same Sothiac months or signs, 
and as sharing the same successive stages of growth, 
development, and decay, from birth to adolescence, 
maturity, old age, and death. As a natural result of 



34 ^ Self-Verifying Chronological 

this, we find a bewildering variety of epoch-titles 
borne by successive epoch-kings. Some of these titles 
are simple and transparent. Thus Mena, who headed 
the Sothiac cycle, 4244 B. C, was called Athothis, 
or Aa-tahu-ti. The meaning of this title is "Offspring 
of Thoth," or, as Eratosthenes rendered it in Greek, 
"Hermogenes." Menes, the first king of Egypt, 
reigned sixty-two years after the epoch 4244 B. C, 
under the epoch-title of "Athothis." In this instance, 
therefore, the title was taken from the name of the 
so-called tutelar deity, Thoth, and explains itself. 

It usually happened that the reign of an epoch- 
king did not begin with the epoch, but was divided by 
it into two unequal parts. In such cases we have the 
reign before the epoch (the epoch-reign according to 
the Turin Papyrus and Eratosthenes), the reign after 
the epoch (the epoch-reign according to Manetho), 
and the entire reign. Thus Zet, or Saites, the Sethon 
of Herodotus, reigned forty-four years, of which six 
years were before the Sothiac Epoch, 724 B. C, and 
thirty-eight years, after it. All these numbers survive 
in the lists, and appear at three distinct reigns. 

The heliacal rising of Sothis on the first day of 
Pharmuthi of the vague year, for instance, correctly 
marked the year 3404 B. C. in the Old Empire. 

Second Month of the Sha-et Season, called Paophi. 

As Horus was born at the winter solstice, he was 
represented in the month of Thoth as a youth wear- 
ing the sidelock, and in the month of Paophi as a re- 
clining sphinx. His distinctive title in this month was 



History of Ancient Egypt 35 

Ken, *'Brave/' (Kiihn), or Ken-ken, "Very Brave." 
The Greeks identified him with their Herakles. King 
Atoth, of the First Dynasty, who reigned thirty-one 
years after the beginning of the Sothiac month of 
Paophi, 4124 B. C, therefore, received the epoch-title 
"Kenkenes," i. e., Ken-ken. The name Paophi, how- 
ever, is Pa-api "The Nile." The corresponding sign 
of the zodiac is still known as "Aquarius." The Nile 
was also called Pa-ior, "The River," which explains 
"Phuoro," or "Neilos," the epoch-title given to 
Usertasen III in the List of Eratosthenes during the 
nineteen years of his reign before the epoch of Paophi, 
2664 B. C. 

The king who reigned at the beginning of the 
Sothiac month of Paophi, 1204 B. C, a Ramesses of 
the Twentieth Dynasty, was familiarly known to the 
classic writers as "King Nile." As his reign extended 
from 1207 B. C. to 1168 B. C, he was on the throne 
at the date of the Fall of Troy, 1181 B. C. 

Third Month of the Sha-et Season, called Athyr. 

Athyr is known to be a form of Hathor. Ha-et 
Har originally meant "House of Horus," that is, the 
cosmic abode from which he emerged at sunrise. In 
the year, it was the sign immediately below the equa- 
tor, from which Horus arose at the vernal equinox, 
when he crossed the equator and entered the upper 
hemisphere. In the "Stela of Cheops' Daughter," 
Hathor is represented as a mermaid, half-woman, half- 
fish (compare the Grecian notion of Aphrodite rising 
from the foam of the sea). 



36 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

This sign, which was the ''House of Horus," be- 
fore the vernal equinox, was simply "Hus-et/^ the 
''Abode," and Hus-iri, the "Abode of the Eye," after 
the autumnal equinox. Isis and Osiris are the Greek 
forms of Hus-et and Hus-iri. Haet and hus axe the 
prototypes of "house" and "hut." 

The epoch-king of Athyr, 4004 B. C, was 
"Kebahu," the last king of Manetho's First Dynasty. 
He received the epoch-title "Uen-nephis," that is, 
Uon-nofer, "Perfect One," or, as some might prefer, 
"Perfect Being." Kebahu, the king, was identified 
with Osiris, the consort of Isis, and not with Hathor, 
and received one of the distinctive titles of Osiris, to 
mark him as an epoch-king. 

We shall see why the birth of Adam was fixed at 
the epoch of Athyr, 4004 B. C, by the later Bible 
chronologers. 

Fourth Month of the Sha-et Season, called Choiak. 

The symbol of Choiak in the "Stela of Cheops' 
Daughter" is an agricultural ofifering. The hiero- 
glyph for Bast (Bastet) seems likewise to represent 
an offering of the same nature. 

At the beginning of this month, Har-ka-necht, 
"Horus, the powerful Bull," crosses the equator, and 
enters the northern hemisphere, awakening the vege- 
table world to life. In the Old Empire, Chem, or 
Min, and the Mendesian Ram (Ba-ncb-ded) served as 
symbols for this month ; but they were afterwards sup- 
planted by Bastet, the goddess of Biibastis. All of 
these were simply personifications of the "generative," 



History of Ancient Egypt 37 

or "procreative/' power in nature, for which reason 
the symbol Bastet was itself sub-symbolized as a cat. 

In the same way this month was also associated 
with the manhood of Horus. Macrobius says: "Hae 
autem setatem diversitates ad solem referuntur, 
qualem ^gyptie proferunt ex adyto die certa, quod 
tunc brevissimo die velut parvus et infans videatur: 
exinde autem procedentibus augmentis, sequinoctio 
vernali similiter atque adolescentis adipiscitur vires 
figuraque juvenis ornatur," etc. 

Pa-ta-hast-et, or "Petubastis," "the Gift of Bast/' 
for example, was the epoch-title of Osarkon II from 
and after the epoch of Choiahk, 964 B. C. 

Krst Month of the Peru'-et (P'ro) Season, called 
Tybi. 

The name Tybi is derived from the teh of Tef-teby 
one of the designations of the lion-headed goddess 
Tef-nuty who was undoubtedly the tutelar deity, i. e.j 
symbol, of this month. 

The king of the Twenty-second Dynasty, who 
reigned at the beginning of this Sothiac month, 844 
B. C, bore the name Pa-mui, "The Lion," which he 
must have assumed before the epoch, for he ascended 
the throne in 848 B. C. Here name and epoch-title 
were identical (as they were with Unas), presumably 
because four years only intervened between his as- 
cesslon and the epoch. 

The epoch 844 B. C. divided Pa-mid's reign of 
seventeen years into two parts, to-wit : four years be- 
fore, and thirteen years after, the epoch, both of which 



38 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

have been unwittingly preserved in the Pseudo-Sothis 
List of Syncellus, so that his date can be fixed with 
mathematical certainty. 

Shortly after the close of the Twenty-second Dy- 
nasty, we find, in the same Sothiac month, a king of 
Memphis and Sais bearing the name Tef-necht, or 
''Tephinachtis," that is, "Victorious Tef-nut. 

In the Turin papyrus- the name of Zoser-sa-f, who 
reigned to the epoch of Tybi, 3764 B. C, heads a 
rubric, and is written in red ink. He is the "Soyphis" 
of Manetho, the "An-soyphis" of Eratosthenes. Ua- 
less he ceased to reign in 3764 B. C, Zoser-teta is the 
name borne by him after the epoch. Manetho ren- 
dered this name Tosortosis, or Sesortosis. It has 
also come down to us in the forms "Sesonchosis" and 
"Sesostris," which are evident corruptions. Dikaear- 
chos mentions this Sesortasis, and fixes his date at 
2,500 years, in round numbers, before "King Nile/* 
that is, at about 3707 B. C. 

Second Month of the Peru^-et Season, called 
Emhir. 

The name Mechir, generally applied to this month, 
is confusing. According to Wilkinson, the Copts 
called it Imshir, which varies but little from the orig- 
inal Egyptian, Em-hir or Am-hir. Hir is the highest 
sign in the sun's apparent annual course; therefore, 
when Horus reached it on the first day of this month, 
he was said to be em hir (from hir, "above," "high"), 
that is, "in the highest sign." This month enjoyed an 
unusual variety of descriptive titles. We find one 



History of Ancient Egypt 39 

king bearing the title "Ameris," a corruption of the 
Greek form "Amiris'* (from Am-hir-i), In this sign 
the sun was in his greatest splendor, Chufu /, who 
reigned at the beginning of the Sothiac month of 
Emhir, 3644 B. C, bore the epoch-title "Mechiris," 
Mechir-i, now Bicheris, and the title ffir, which ex- 
pressed it in one word. As the sun ascended through 
this sign during this month, to immediately descend 
through it in the following month, Emhir and Phame- 
noth were regarded as "twins," and represented as 
twin wolves facing in opposite directions. Emhir was 
called Rohk-ur, "great heat," while Phamenoth was 
called Rohk-nes, "little heat." King Bokchoris, whose 
connection with "great heat" has given rise to a 
legend as tragic as it is touching, is but a slightly- 
modified Rokchoris {Rohk-ur 4). Egyptologists have 
sought in vain for a king bearing this name, but they 
may be assured that they will never find him, for his 
name was Zet, the Sethon of Herodotus, and his 
epoch-title ''Rohk-ur-i/' or Rokchoris, alone gave rise 
to the silly story that he was "burnt alive by Sabako." 

Third Month of the Peru'-et Season, called Phame- 
noth. 

The Greek form of the name of this month, 
Phamenoth, is as misleading as Mechir. The Copts 
pronounced the name "Paramhat," which leads un- 
erringly to the original Pa-ra-am-hat, meaning "the 
sun at the middle, or heart" of his course. This 
"highest point" was the an or ian (turning point) 
which we have already explained while treating of 



40 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

Janus. On the first day of "Paramhat" the sun began 
to retrace his course, and was, therefore, Hkened to a 
crab. As the highest sign was compared to the face 
Qiir), which is above the body, so was this highest 
point, to the crown, which is worn on the top of the 
head. The king of the Fourth Dynasty, who had the 
good fortune to head this Sothiac month, 3524 B. C, 
was called Cha-f-ra, the "Crown of Ra" {i. e., ''Ra, his 
crown"), and also bore the title User-hat in com- 
memoration of the sun's arrival at the hearty or middle, 
of his course. 

The Hyksos king who came 1,460 years later re- 
ceived the title Paian, since converted into Baian. A 
successor of this king called himself Chian, or, as I 
conceive it, Ach-ian, and, besides the customary titles, 
bore the unusual title Hyk-satii, "Ruler of Foreign 
Countries," from which Hyksos is derived. 

In the "Stela of Cheops' Daughter" the two wolves 
serve to mark this great turning point. King Neco's 
title, Nem-ab-ra (ab for hat), "Renewed is the Heart 
of Ra," had direct reference to this middle point, 
604 B. C. 

Fourth Month of the Peru'-et Season, called Phar- 
muthi. 

Paramudeh of the Copts resembles the Greek form 
Pharmuthi so closely that it affords us but little as- 
sistance in discovering the original form of the name. 
The first of this month, in the fixed year, coincided 
with the "rising of the divine Sothis." When the sun 
began to descend he was no longer Horns, but 



History of Ancient Egypt 41 

''Ra'' — the old primeval Ra, Horus was the son of 
Isis and Osiris; but this primeval Ra was the son of 
Neith, the '^great mother." Instead of Sa-neit, he was 
generally called Sa-muthi, or, with the definite article, 
P'sa-muthi, which was rendered "Psamuthis" by the 
Greeks. We might be tempted to believe that Phar- 
muthi was simply a modified form of Phrasamuthi, 
were it not for the fact that Ra at this time was sup- 
posed to embark in his boat, or ark, on his southward 
journey. In the "Stela of Cheops' Daughter" there 
is a representation of this ark, or great bark, which 
makes it more probable that Pharmuthi stands for 
the sun in his bark. There are hundreds of allu- 
sions to the two barks of Ra, Semkutet and Madet, in 
the "Pyramid Texts." A celebrated queen of the 
Eighteenth Dynasty bore a name which is rendered 
Mut-em-ua, but means "Muth in the bark," which is 
analagous to Pa-ra-em-mud-et, the only difference 
being that the mother (Neith) is substituted for her 
son Ra. If one simple fact had been heeded, to wit, 
that this "great mother" was called Neith at Sais, Isis 
at Busiris, Hathor at Anu, Muth at Thebes, etc., many 
voluminous works on the religion of ancient Egypt 
would not have been written and published. 

In the Table of Abydos, the last king of the 
Fourth Dynasty is called Shepses-ka-f (Sebescheres) ; 
but in the lists of Manetho his place is usurped by the 
unintelligible title "Thamphthis," which appears as 
^Tammes" in the list of Eratosthenes. This is an in- 
stance in which an epoch-title has found its way into 
the lists by the side of the real name of the Pharaoh; 



42 A Self-Verifying Chronological 

for, as we shall see, when we come to examine the 
epoch-reigns, Shepseskaf reigned nine years after the 
beginning of the Sothiac month of Pharmuthi, 3404 
B. C, under the epoch-title of 'Tsamuthis." 

"Pammes" and "Thamphthis" bear but a faint re- 
semblance to Psamuthis, yet it is possible to follow 
the successive changes which have led to these cor- 
ruptions in the original Greek. Eratosthenes trans- 
lates Pammes "Archondes," from archon, which refers 
to Ra, the son of Neith, who had passed the summit 
of life and was growing old. 

The Hyksos king who reigned one cycle after 
Shepseskaf y to wit, 1944 B. C, received the title 
"Asas/' meaning "very ancient," which now appears 
in the lists as Assis, Ases, and Aseth. The name of 
this king was Set-nuhti, rendered "Sethos" by Mane- 
tho. The form Aseth is a blending of Asas and Seth. 
The celebrated "Tablet of Four Hundred Years" dates 
from Set-nuhti and the epoch 1944 B. C. 

Psamuthis, who now fills the place of Psametichos 
II of the Twenty-sixth Dynasty, was the epoch-king 
of Pharmuthi, 484 B. C. As there was no place for 
him in the Persian Dynasty, some one substituted 
him for Psametichos II. 

First Month of the She-mou Season, called Pa- 
chons. 

There seems to be no difference of opinion among 
Egyptologists as to the derivation of the name Pa- 
chons; they all concede that it is derived from Chons, 
the moon, who, according to Theban notions, was the 



History of Ancient Egypt 43 

"peace-loving" son of Amen and Muth. As we shall 
see, he was substituted for Seh, or the earth. The 
moon seems to move more swiftly than any of the 
planets, owing to the fact that she revolves around 
the earth. It was this swiftness of motion which gave 
rise to the name "Chons." On the first of this month 
the sun entered the last sign in the upper hemisphere. 
At the end of this month he ended his career as 
Horus, and became Turn, Atum, or Osiris. In order 
to understand why the moon was associated with this 
month, we must bear in mind that, in the formation 
of the solar system, the earth belongs here, and the 
moon simply takes the place of the earth. In the four- 
fold division of the year, Bel or Ra presided over the 
months of Phamenoth, Pharmuthi, and Pachons. 

The titles descriptive of the Sothiac month of 
Pachons are Amen-ir-tais, "Amyrtaios," "Ammono- 
dotos," "the Gift of Amen" (lit. "Amen makes the 
gift"), Aahmes, "child of the moon," Pa-ta-chons, 
"Petichons," "the Gift of Chons," all of which will 
receive our attention in the part of this work devoted 
to the epoch-reigns. 

Second Month of the She-mou Season, called 
Paoni or Payni. 

The beginning of this month, as we have seen, 
coincides with the autumnal equinox. Ra crosses the 
equator and enters the lower hemisphere, where he 
becomes Turn or Osiris. Uon-as, "Ancient One," as 
we have also seen, was a title of Osiris. Paoni and 
Payni are forms of Pa-uon-i. The last king of Mane- 



44 A Self-Verifying Chronological 

tho V's Dynasty, who headed this Sothiac month, 
3146 B. C, reigning sixteen years before and eigh- 
teen years after the epoch, assumed the title itself, 
pure and unchanged. In fact, Uonas seems to have 
been his only name and only title. The inscriptions 
recently discovered in his pyramid contain the fol- 
lowing passage : 

"Up-uk huset-uk em pet em abii en pet enthuf as diu 
uatha^ "Thou takest thy place in heaven, among 
the planets of heaven, behold! thou art the evening 
star." Uonas, as Pharaoh, represented the sun just 
above and below the equator, which was equivalent 
to the western horizon in the day, and the above allu- 
sion to him as "evening star" was for the purpose of 
symbolically marking this position. It was not in- 
tended that any but the initiated should imderstand 
this. Thothmes III, epoch-king in 1704 B. C, intro- 
duced a new epoch-title, Cha-em-uas, "Chamois," 
"Crowned in Thebes," but also bore the title 
Har-em-acJm, "Harmachis," "Horus on the Hori- 
zon," which is so plain that it requires no further 
explanation. 

We have seen that Anu stood as the tutelar deity 
of the fourth division of the year, which commenced 
at the autumnal equinox, and we find that Thothmes 
III was the first to assume the title Hyk-ami, "Ruler 
of On." 

In the Third Cycle this epoch fell in the Ptolemaic 
period, where Ptolemy Euergetes appears to remind us 
of Uon-nofer, "the Good Being," a title used inter- 
changeably with Uon-as. 



History of Ancient Egypt 45 

Third Month of the She-mou Season, called 
Epiphi. 

Epiphi is plainly Apapi as pronounced in Lower 
Egypt. Ap-ap was the "giant snake," or "great 
dragon," the symbol of evil and wickedness, the "lord 
of darkness," the great adversary of Osiris, in one 
word, the Egyptian devil. 

Nofer-ka-ra Pepa, the "Phiops" of Manetho, who 
reigned from his sixth to his one hundredth year (not 
one hundred years) was the epoch-king of Epiphi, 
3044 B. C, and is called "Apappus" in the List of 
Eratosthenes. "Apappus" is not, as some might sup- 
pose, a Greek form of the monumental Pepa, which 
Manetho rendered "Phiops," but Ap-ap-i. There can 
be no mistake about the identity of "Apappus," for 
his phenomenal reign of one hundred years could only 
belong to Nofer-ka-ra Pepa, whose pyramid at Sak- 
kara has furnished us with a volume of ancient hiero- 
glyphic inscriptions, in which his name appears hun- 
dreds of times. 

It is hard to say when and why Set became identi- 
fied with Apap. The Hyksos kings had a fancy for 
the names Set and Apapi; one of them bore the name 
Set-nub-ti, or Sethos, and two of them the name 
Apophis. They identified Set with their Sutech, and 
the unquestioned fact that these Aamu (Hamite) in- 
vaders of Egypt were "serpent-worshipers" makes it 
very probable, indeed, that Sutech was regarded as the 
"great serpent." Be this as it may, it is certain that 
immediately after the Hyksos Expulsion Set and Apap 
were looked upon as almost identical. 



46 A Self-Verifying Chronological 

One of the most interesting epoch-reigns to be 
found in the annals of Egyptian history is that of 
Seti L This king reigned thirty-six years (including 
his joint-reign with Ramesses I) in the month of 
Paoni and twenty-three years in the month of Epiphi, 
that is, from 1620 B. C. to 1561 B. C, the epoch being 
1 584 B. C. The first thirty-six years of his reign were 
given to Sa pa-uon-i, which now appears as "Spanios," 
a name characterized by Bunsen as preposterous and 
nonsensical. Thus we see that, according to the 
Egyptian way of thinking, Seti I, during these thirty- 
six years, reigned as the ''Son of Paoni." His reign 
as "Osiropis" will be explained under the appropriate 
head. 

In the good old times, as shown by the so-called 
"Stela of Cheops' Daughter," Ptah, bandaged as a 
mummy, stood for this month, which agrees with the 
ancient conception of Ptah as the creator of the visible 
world, who here precedes the birth of Har-pa-chraff 
the infant Horus. It was for this reason that Seti 
was also called Mer-nu-ptah, "Menophthah," "Beloved 
of Ptah." 

Fourth Month of the She-mou Season, called 
Mesori. 

The birth of the infant Horus occurred at the end 
of the year, or the winter solstice. The birth of Ho- 
rus, Mes-har-i, gave its name to this month, which 
was the last month of the Egyptian year. Unfortu- 
nately, the epochs of Mesori, 2924 B. C. and 1464 
B. C, both fell in periods of anarchy and obscurity, 



History of Ancient Egypt 47 

and, to add to the confusion, the separate reigns of 
these periods are now entirely wanting in Manetho's 
lists. 

Harpokrates was identified by the Greeks with 
Herakles, while Har-pa-chrat, "Horus the Infant," 
was called Sem-su, "the eldest," by the Egyptians. 
Eratosthenes has a king, No. 26, whose name now 
reads "Semphrukrates," translated '^Herakles Har- 
pokrates," with a reign of eighteen years. It is plain 
that this is an epoch-title, and that the name "Semph- 
rukrates" was originally Sempsu-Harpokrates, both 
of which have come down to us in these forms. At 
the bottom of these lies the original Sem-su Har-pa- 
chrat, The reign of eighteen years exactly fills out 
the interval between 2942 B. C, when the Seventh 
Dynasty came to an end, and the epoch of Mesori, 
2924 B. C. This reign further shows that the first 
king of the Eighth Dynasty reigned at least eighteen 
years, although there were in Egypt at this time at 
least three separate and distinct lines of rulers. 

The date of the succeeding epoch of Mesori was 
1464 B. C, or just twelve years after the death of 
Menophthah. The reign of Chamois (Cha-em-uas), 
"Crowned in Thebes," reached to this epoch.. The 
king to whom this title belonged was Sa-ptah, "son of 
Ptah," who was afterwards deposed and driven from 
Egypt by Set-necht. 

The last epoch of Mesori coincided with the birth 
of Jesus; but an error of several years was made when 
the Christian Era was determined and established, 
which was centuries afterwards. 



48 



A Self- Verifying Chronological 



THE SIGNS OF THE ZODIAC DERIVED 

FROM THE SYMBOLS OF THE 

EGYPTIAN MONTHS 

The signs of the zodiac, to which we have been 
accustomed from earliest childhood, were derived 
from the symbols of the Egyptian months. The 
science of astronomy, as taught in Egypt, was carried 
to Babylonia and surrounding countries shortly after 
the Hyksos Invasion, and, although it was changed 
in many particulars to conform to new conditions and 
local notions, many surviving features enable us to 
trace it back to its original home on the banks of the 
Nile. 

Eor reference and comparison, the months and 
corresponding signs are now placed in parallel lines: 



Months. 

1. Thoth 

2. Paophi 

3. Athyr 

4. Choiahk 

5. Tybi 

6. Emhir 

7. Phamenoth 

8. Pharmutlii 

9. Pachons 

10. Paoni 

11. Kpiphi 

12. Mesori 



THOTH OR CAPRICORN 

After the downfall of the Old Empire, 2948 B. C, 
Thebes gradually gained the ascendency, until, under 
the Eighteenth, Nineteenth, and Twentieth Dynas- 



Signs. 


Approximate Dates. 


Capricorn 


Dec. 21 to Jan. 


21. 


Aquarius 


Jan. 21 to Feb. 


21, 


Pisces 


Feb. 21 to Mar. 


21. 


Aries 


Mar. 21 to Apr. 


21, 


Taurus 


Apr. 21 to May 


21. 


Gemini 


May 21 to June 


21. 


Cancer 


June 21 to July 


21, 


Iveo 


July 21 to Aug. 


21, 


Virgo 


Aug. 21 to Sept. 


21. 


Libra 


Sept. 21 to Oct. 


21, 


Scorpio 


Oct. 21 to Nov. 


21. 


Sagittarius 


Nov. 21 to Dec. 


21, 



History of Ancient Egypt 49 

ties, it became the capital of Egypt. At the time of the 
Exodus, Thebes was called No, "The City," and No-od^ 
"The Great City." The Thebans placed Amen at the 
beginning of the year, and, as the goat was one of the 
symbols of Amen, this "horn" of the year became 
"Capricorn," from capeVy "goat," and cornu, "horn." 
7\t the head of the Second Cycle, 2784 B. C, we find 
Amen-em-het (Amenemes), "Amen at the head," who 
assumed the additional title Nem-mestu, "Reborn," 
"Again-born." The "hidden," or concealed, God was 
called Men. His symbol, or hieroglyph, was the bolt. 
When the Egyptians cried out to the invisible and hid- 
den God, entreating him to manifest, or reveal, him- 
self, they used the exclamation, ^^AmenT 

[ PAOPHI OR AQUARIUS 

We have seen that the name of the second month 
was Pa-api, "The Nile." The definite article Pa, pre- 
iixed to Api, shows that this name originated after the 
Old Empire. Aquarius, "The waterman," is certainly 
an adaptation of Pa-api. The two wave-lines used to 
represent Aquarius are taken from the three wave- 
lines employed by the ancient Egyptians to represent 
mou, "water." 

ATHYR OR PISCES 

As Haet-har, Hathor, was the "house," or abode, 
from which Horus arose at sunrise, so was Hns-et, 
Isis, the abode into which Turn retired at sunset. 
Hathor and Isis represent the sign immediately below 
the equator, the former at sunrise and the vernal 
equinox, the latter at sunset and the autumnal equi- 



50 A Self-Verifying Chronological 

nox. On the so-called ''Stela of Cheops' Daughter" 
Hathor is pictured with the head and upper body of 
a woman, and the lower body of a fish, rising, appar- 
ently, out of the cosmic ocean. It is natural, there- 
fore, that she was identified with Venus Aphrodite, 
who was supposed to rise from the foam of the sea. 
The conception of Venus as morning and evening 
star, and of Hathor and Isis, was necessarily a dual 
one. For this reason, the "house" of Horus and the 
"house" of Turn, although, in fact, one, were repre- 
sented as two fishes. "Pisces" still stands for these 
two fishes of ancient Egypt. 

CHOIAHK OR ARIES 

Most Egyptologists derive Choiahk from Ka- 
Mr-ka, "Chief Bull" (lit. "Bull above Bull"). In the 
Table of Abydus the second king of Manetho's Second 
Dynasty is called Ka-kau, rendered "Kaiechos" by 
Manetho. Inverting Manetho's softening process, a 
form resembling Choika, Choiak, might be easily 
evolved from Ka-i-ka. Of one fact there can be no 
possible doubt : this month symbolized the reproduc- 
tive power in nature. As we have already seen, a va- 
riety of symbols was employed in dififerent parts of 
Egypt, such as the Apis-bull, Mendesian-ram, Bubas- 
tite-cat, etc. 

The Cushites, who founded the first kingdom in 
Babylonia, were derived from the original Hamite 
settlement in the Delta, and naturally adopted the 
peculiar notions of that section of Egypt, their prin- 



History of Ancient Egypt 51 

cipal city being Avaris, on the Pelusiac branch of the 
Nile, afterwards occupied by the Hyksos. Aries, the 
ram, is the famous Mendesian-ram, whose worship (?) 
is said to have been instituted by "Kaiechos." The 
"golden calf of the Hebrews was another Lower 
Egyptian symbol of this month. 

TYBI OR TAURUS 

Although the name Tybi seems to be derived from 
Tef-teb, one of the forms of Tef-nut, this month was 
originally sacred to Horus Ka-necht, "the powerful 
bull," whom no one could withstand. "Taurus," the 
bull, is a survival of this powerful bull. 

EMHIR OR GEMINI 

Emhir and Phamenoth both represent the highest 
zone traversed by the sun in his yearly course — the 
zone through which he ascends in the month of Emhir 
and descends in the month of Phamenoth. These two 
months, therefore, were symbolized as "twins," "twin- 
wolves," "great heat," and "little heat," etc. The 
sign Gemini now alone preserves the most ancient 
designation, "twins." One of these wolves, on a stan- 
dard, and facing left, can be seen in the famous repre- 
sentation of Chufu I and Chufu II, in the peninsula of 
Sinai, where it marks the Sothiac month of Em-hir, 
3644 B. C, for the wolf of Phamenoth faces to the 
right. 

Under the wolf of Chufu there is a representation 
of Har-ti-ma, "Horus the Lancer;" in other words, 



52 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

Horus, with the lance directed against the most north- 
ern point in the heavens to which the sun is allowed 
to attain, and prepared to thrust it back when it 
reaches that point. 

PHAMENOTH OR CANCER 

The first day of Phamenoth marks the turning- 
point, an, or ian, in the sun's course above the equator. 
Cancer, or the Crab, is the appropriate symbol of the 
sun's backvv^ard, or retrogade, course after the sum- 
mer solstice. This turning-point, or highest horn, 
was sometimes called cha, "crown," sometimes hat, 
"heart." The title of Cha-f-ra, User-hat, "Wielding 
the Heart," marks this point in the Sothiac year, 
3524 B. C, as does the later title, Pa-ian, mark it in 
2064 B. C. 

PHARMUTHI OR LEO 

The lion is supposed to symbolize the fierce heat 
of the July sun. Rohk-nez, "little heat," would hardly 
seem to agree with this idea of fierce heat, were it not 
that "great heat" and "little heat" are merely dis- 
tinctive names for the twin-months, both of which 
were distinguished for the fierce heat of the sun, which 
was rendered still more oppressive and unbearable by 
the total want of moisture and desert-like barrenness 
of the land. Rohk-ur and Rohk-nez were twins, of 
whom one now retains the name Gemini and the other 
Leo. 

PACHONS OR VIRGO 

The "virgin," who now takes the place of Chons, 
is more ancient than the Theban notion of the gentle 



History of Ancient Egypt 53 

and peace-loving son of Amen and Muth. This month 
was originally represented by Seh, whose consort was 
the virgin Nut, whom the Greeks called Rhea. 

The name of Nut is generally followed by pet, 
"heaven/* or hir, the determinative for heaven, which 
demonstrates that from the earliest times she was re- 
garded as the heavenly virgin. When Bunsen wrote 
his famous work, "Egypt's Place in Universal His- 
tory," it was supposed that the conception of Osiris 
was a comparatively recent one; but the inscriptions 
in the pyramids of Unas, Teta, Pepa, etc., show that 
Osiris, Seh, Nut, and nearly all the other so-called 
deities of ancient Egypt, date from the prehistoric 
age. The idea of the "father,'* the "virgin," and the 
"son," is also prehistoric, and, although the "triad," 
at dififerent historical epochs, bore different names, 
it was, in fact, always the same. Thus we find Seh, 
the father. Nut, the virgin, and Osiris, the son, in the 
Pyramid texts, just as we afterwards find Amen, the 
father, Muth, the mother, and Chons, the son. In 
all these triads, we must bear in mind that father, 
virgin, and son, are symbols, not entities or re- 
alities. 

Virgo, who now lends her name to this sign of the 
zodiac, is the heavenly Nut, the virgin mother of 
Osiris, who was called the "perfect one" and "the an- 
cient one," and symbolized light and goodness, con- 
cord or harmony, peace and happiness. This virgin, 
the "great mother," the "queen of heaven," the "in- 
scrutable Neith, whose veil no mortal could lift and 
live," had such a hold on the minds of the inhabitants 



54 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

of Lower Egypt, that the Theban notions of Amen, 
Muth, and Chons were never able to supplant it. This 
accounts for the Babylonians and those who have ob- 
tained the signs of the zodiac from Babylonia, having 
this primeval virgin. The substitution of Chons, the 
moon, for Seh, the Earth, was the result of evolution, 
but not in the direction contended for by Darwin. 

PAONI OR LIBRA 

Since we know that the beginning of the month 
of Paoni coincided with the autumnal equinox, when 
the sun was balanced over the equator, and not with 
some other season of the year, as supposed by Egyp- 
tologists who have preceded me, the perfect applicabil- 
ity of Libra, or the Balance, is manifest. The Egyp- 
tians had a variety of expressions, illustrative of the 
sun's position over the equator. As we have repeat- 
edly stated, the equator of the year occupied the same 
position as the horizon of the day. 

Har-em-achu, "Horus on the horizon," therefore, 
was equivalent to Libra, or the sun over the equator. 
We have also shown that, when the sun sank below 
the equator, or horizon, he became Osiris, and that 
this month bore one of his titles, Pa-uon-i. 

The primitive arrangement of the months was 
purely scientific, and therefore ascribed to Thoth. 
Many symbolical notions were engrafted on the orig- 
inal scientific scheme in the course of succeeding cen- 
turies, but in the case of Libra the scientific idea has 
come down to us unaffected by the thousands of years 
which have elapsed since it was first evolved. 



History of Ancient Egypt 55 

EPIPHI OR SCORPIO 

Apap, the "giant snake," Selk-et, the "scorpion," 
and the hippopotamus, the hog, and other brutal and 
ferocious animals, were symbols of Typhonic Set, 
"the lord of darkness." In the Pyramid Texts (which 
are nearly one thousand years older than the estab- 
lishment of the kingdom of Babylonia by the tra- 
ditional Nimrod), Selke appears, written phonetically, 
Selket, and followed by the picture of a scorpion as 
a determinative. The idea of the "scorpion," there- 
fore, is as ancient as that of Apap, and both are equally 
Egyptian. It is probable that the boa-constrictor of 
Southern Egypt was at the bottom of the Upper 
Egyptian symbol Apap, while the Scorpion of Lower 
Egypt was the corresponding symbol in the Delta. The 
fact that Ptah fills this place in the "Stela of Cheops' 
Daughter" indicates that the idea of the "serpent," 
"dragon," and "scorpion," is a later modification, or, 
I might say, corruption, of the primitive scientific ar- 
rangement. After the Egyptian priests commenced 
to use the symbols of wickedness to terrify and in- 
timidate the uneducated masses of the people, they 
naturally sought out and adopted the most repulsive 
creatures they could find. Did not Dante, In his In- 
ferno, succeed in reaching the utmost extremes In this 
field of typhonic monstrosities to which the most 
morbid imagination could aspire to go? 

MESORI OR SAGITTARIUS 

The name Mesori is not the symbol from which 
Sagittarius was derived. The ideas associated with 



56 A Self-Verifying Chronological 

the last month of the year were necessarily com- 
plicated. The old year expired, to be followed by the 
birth of the new year. Osiris, the symbol of light 
and goodness, concord and harmony, etc., was mur- 
dered by Typhon, the "old serpent," the "red dragon," 
the "symbol of darkness and wickedness," etc., to be 
in turn slain by the avenging dart of the youthful 
Horus, whose birth at the end of this month is ex- 
pressed by ^'Mes-har-ir The Babylonians repre- 
sented this according to their own notions. It is 
plain, however, that Sagittarius, the "Archer," rid- 
ing over the prostrate form of the wounded serpent, 
is this same avenging Horus. The Egyptians them- 
selves sometimes represented this sign as Sate^ the 
"arrow," which was in turn emblematic of the dis- 
sipation of darkness by the rays of light shot forth 
by the new-born sun. 

FORMATION OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM 

The "nebular hypothesis," which was first ad- 
vanced in modern times by the German philosopher 
Kant, was the "A, B, C," of the ancient Egyptian 
science of astronomy. The old sun, called Ra, was 
originally evolved out of a "nebula," or chaotic mass. 
The planets, Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Earth, Venus, and 
Mercury, were portions of this old sun, successively 
"lifted up," or thrown ofif, in the form of rings like 
those still revolving around Saturn. Upon collapsing, 
these rings, obeying a well-known law of nature, 
formed globes and condensed into planets. As Sat- 
urn was the outermost planet known to the Egyp- 



History of Ancient Egypt 57 

tians, time did not begin until he commenced to 
revolve in solitary grandeur around Ra. The extract 
from Manetho transmitted by Eusebius, according 
to which no time was assigned to Hephaistos (Ptah), 
the architect or "modeler" of the solar system, shows 
that there was as yet no succession of day and night, 
no revolution of a planet around the central mass, no 
standard by which time, as we understand the term, 
could be measured. Saturn, therefore, became iden- 
tified with time, and he is certainly the planet origi- 
nally known to the Grecians as "Chronos." This 
planet in the course of time evolved a planetary sys- 
tem of his own, a beautiful system of moons and rings, 
and in this way became at first a subordinate Ra, and 
eventually a subordinate Horus. Now, as the planets 
were composed of matter torn off from the body of 
Ra, and "lifted up" on high above his equator, this 
process was appropriately, though symbolically, de- 
scribed as a bii'th. Thus Ra gave birth to Saturn, 
and in this sense was called the father of Saturn. This 
notion of generation and birth was transferred and 
applied to "successor," so that Osiris, who was iden- 
tified with the planet Venus (Isis), was sometimes 
called "the son of Seb," that is, the "successor" of the 
planet Seb (Earth). 

Jupiter, who was also a secondary sun, was like- 
wise called Ra and Horus; in fact, owing to his size 
and brilliancy, was pre-eminently the Horus among 
the planets. Mars, or Menthu, was the third planet 
generated by Ra, so that Seb, or the Earth, was still 
a part of the sun for many years after the birth of 



58 A Self-Verifying Chronological 

Menthu, This fact gave rise to a legend, according to 
which Ra once reigned upon the earth. Thus there 
were three planets above the earth; and this was an- 
other reason why they were each denominated Horus, 
from har, or hir, "above." 

The earth (being man's habitat and point of obser- 
vation) became the equator of the solar system as 
known to the ancient Egyptians. Saturn, Jupiter, 
and Mars were above the earth, or man's plane of ob- 
servation, and, therefore, in the upper hemisphere. 
Venus, the ''star of Isis and Osiris," "the star which 
conveyed the ^BemC (Phoenix, Venus) of Osiris;" 
and Mercury, "the star of Set'' or Typhon; and Ho- 
rus, the new sun, the babe of the winter solstice, were 
below the earth, and, therefore, in the lower hemi- 
sphere. It must be borne in mind, however, that this 
science, in its original purity and perfection, came 
from primitive man, from the venerated ach-i-ii, or 
"saints," and was prehistoric. In the course of cen- 
turies the Egyptians were no longer able to fully un- 
derstand or grasp it. The facts were obscured by a 
cloud of symbols, legends, and allegories dexterously 
woven around them by cunning priests. 

Our mental vision enables us to follow the suc- 
cessive formation of Ra, or the old sun, and the 
planets, down to Mercury. Since Mercury was 
formed, Ra ceased to generate any additional "off- 
spring;" but, instead, slowly condensed to his present 
limits and became Har, or Horus, the new sun. In 
other words, he gave birth to a son, or successor, who 
became the ruling sun of the solar system. The 



History of Ancient Egypt 59 

legends relating to Ra, his reign upon earth, his love 
for Isis (Venus), his being stung and poisoned by the 
serpent {Set or Typhon, Mercury), and his old age, 
decrepitude, and death, refer to these stages in the 
formation of the solar system. 

When the Egyptians were no longer able to con- 
ceive of the earth as a planet revolving around the 
sun betv^een Mars and Venus, they substituted Chons, 
the moon, for Seb, and thus involved themselves in 
countless inconsistencies and contradictions. 

The sun, both as Ra and Horus, is always without 
a feminine consort, or counterpart. This is logical, 
for the sun, as the father and generator of the plane- 
tary system, and as the center and ruler of the solar 
system, is active and masculine, never passive, recep- 
tive, or feminine. 

The planets, on the contrary, are alike active and 
passive, masculine and feminine. We accordingly 
find couples, such as Shu and Tefmit, Seb and Nvttf 
Osiris and Isis, and Seth and Nephthis. In the 
Sothiac system the sun is supposed to ascend and 
descend through the six planetary stages or zones. 
The lowest zone is that between the sun and Mercury. 
Descending, it is governed by Har-pa-chraf (Mesori) ; 
ascending, by Thoth; hence Mercury or Hermes. 
The next zone lies between Mercury and Venus. De- 
scending, it is ruled by Seth, or Typhon, sometimes 
in his form of Ap-ap, or the "Giant Snake;" ascend- 
ing, by A pi, the Nile; hence "Ap-ap-i" and 'Ta-opi.'" 

The third zone, which lies between Venus and the 
Earth, is presided over, descending, by Osiris, "The 



6o A Self- Verifying Chronological 

One," "The Perfect One," ''The Ancient One," and, 
ascending, by Hathor, the "alter ego," or counter- 
part, of Isis. The corresponding months are Pa-uon-i 
and Athyr, or Hathor. 

The fourth zone, which Hes between the earth, or 
moon, and Mars, is presided over, descending, by 
ChonSy the moon, and, ascending, by Seh, in his char- 
acter of nourisher of planet-Hfe, a position afterwards 
usurped by Bastet. 

The fifth zone, or that between Mars and Jupiter, 
was sacred, descending, to Shu, the Agathodsemon 
of the Greeks, and, ascending, to Tef-nut, sometimes 
called Tef-teb and Tef-necht. 

The sixth, or highest zone, lying between Jupiter 
and Saturn, was ruled over by Ra, the sun at the 
zenith. In the year, when the ascending, or growing, 
sun reached this zone, he was em-hir, that is, in his 
highest sign; and when he reached his crown (cha-f), 
or culminating point, or, as it was often expressed, 
his ian, or turning point, he was said to be em-hat, 
that is, "at the heart," or middle, of his annual course. 
These terms gave rise to the names Emhir, or Mechir, 
and Pa-ra-m-hat, or Phamenoth. The formation and 
government of the solar system; the birth, growth, 
and death of man; the birth, growth, and death of the 
day and year; and the government of the world by 
Pharaoh, the son and successor of Ra, are all ex- 
plained in one way. The standard is God's govern- 
ment of the material universe, as illustrated by the 
formation and government of the solar system, and 
by the birth, life, and death of man. 



History of Ancient Egypt 6i 

The Sothiac year was modeled after the scientific, 
or vagiie, year. Originally it commenced when 
Sothis rose heliacally on the first day of Pharmuthi; 
the last occurrence of which, before the accession of 
Mena, was in the year 4864 B. C. 

The Egyptians, according to Manetho, assigned 
1,255 years to the government of the Ach-i-u, or 
''Saints," the last of whom was called Bytis, or Butiy 
the name afterwards used to designate the King of 
Lower Egypt. These 1,255 years before Mena did 
not reach back to the beginning of a Sothiac cycle. 
The chronology, however, was carried back 11,895 
years further, or to the year 17394 B. C, so as to in- 
clude certain astronomical periods allotted to the 
government of Shu, Seh, Osiris, Seth, and Horus. 

It should be borne in mind that the sun did not 
become Ra, that is, a ruler in the Egyptian sense, 
until he had at least one planet revolving around and 
subject to him. This first planet was supposed to be 
Saturn, the father of Time. The original Ra, to whom 
Saturn was subject, was called the ''son of Ptah" in 
Lower Egypt. At Thebes, the architect, or "mod- 
eler," of this Ra was called Amen; at Elephantine, 
Num, or Chnum. 

Thus, Ra, the "son of Ptah," sometimes called 
Sa-neity "Son of Neith," and Ptah, Amen, and Chnum, 
together with their consorts, were all associated with 
the highest zone. 

But Jupiter, the most magnificent of the planets, 
the central sun and ruler of a grand system of moons, 
or satellites, was also called Ra, and followed immedi- 



62 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

ately after Ra, the ''son of Ptah." The appearance 
of two ''Ras in immediate succession confused the 
copyists of the list, who dropped the last, supposing 
it to be a repetition of the first; but ''Helios, [son of] 
Hephaistos," in the present copy of Manetho's list, 
corrupt though it be, points to a planet Ra as well as 
the primeval sun Ra. The Pyramid Texts abound in 
allusions to the "Great Nine," generally called the 
"Great Ennead." When the inscriptions known as 
the "Pyramid Texts" were engraved in the chambers 
and passages of the pyramids of Unas, Teta, Meri-ra, 
Pepa, Mer-en-ra Menthu-em-sa-uf, and Nofer-ka-ra 
Pepa, the sun of the Sothiac year was below the 
horizon, hence Ra had become Turn. Now the "Great 
Nine" are enumerated as follows: 

1. Ra, in his character of 5. Nuty his consort. 

Turn. 6. Osiris. 

2. Shu. 7. Isis, his consort. 

3. Tef-nut, his consort. 8. Seth. 

4. Seb. 9. Nephthis, his consort. 

These, of course, were followed by Horus, the present 
sun. It is not without a good and sufficient reason 
that Ra is here fixed at the summer solstice, or the 
beginning of Phamenoth. The Turin papyrus fur- 
nishes the evidence that as far back as the beginning 
of the Eighteenth Dynasty the number of years each 
of these were supposed to have ruled was carefully set 
down, and it is a most significant fact that the reigns 
of all the kings prior to the Eighteenth Dynasty, be- 
ginning with Mena, "the head," were accurately given 
in years, months, and days. 



History of Ancient Egypt 63 

It is amusing and instructive to see what shapes 
these primitive notions regarding the formation of 
the solar system assumed after they reached the 
Greeks and Romans. For example, Ovid, in the 
first book of his work, called the "Metamorphoses," 
says : 

''At first the sea, the earth, and the heaven, which 
covers all things, were the only face of nature 
throughout the whole universe, which men have 
named Chaos; a rude and undigested mass, and noth- 
ing more than an inert weight and the discordant 
atoms of things not harmonizing, heaped together in 
the same spot. No sun as yet gave light to the world, 
nor did the moon, by increasing, recover her horns 
anew. The earth did not as yet hang in the surround- 
ing air balanced by its own weight, nor had Amphi- 
trite stretched out her arms along the lengthened 
margin of the coasts. Wherever, too, was the land, 
there also was the sea and the air; and thus was the 
earth without firmness, the sea unnavigable, the air 
void of light; in no one of them did its form exist. 
And one was obstructing the other, because in the 
same body the cold was striving with the hot, the 
moist with the dry, the soft with the hard, things hav- 
ing weight with those devoid of weight. 

''To this discord God and bounteous nature put 
an end; for he separated the earth from the heavens, 
and the waters from the earth, and distinguished the 
clear heavens from the gross atmosphere. And after 
he unraveled these, and released them from the con- 
fused heap, he combined them, thus disjoined, in 
harmonious unison in place. The element of the 
vaulted heaven, fiery and without weight, shone forth, 
and selected a place for itself in the highest region: 



64 A Self-Verifying Chronological 

next after it, in lightness and in place, was the air; 
the earth was more weighty than these, and drew 
with it the more ponderous atoms, and was pressed 
together by its own gravity. 

''The encircling waters sank to the lowermost 
place and surrounded the solid globe. When thus 
he, whoever of the gods he was, had divided the mass 
so separated, and reduced it, so divided, into mem- 
bers, in the first place, that it might not be unequal 
on any side, he gathered it up into the form of a vast 
globe; then he commanded the sea to be poured 
around it. . . . 

''He commanded the plains, too, to be extended, 
the valleys to sink down, the craggy mountains to 
arise. . . . 

"Scarcely had he separated all these by fixed limits, 
when the stars, which had long lain hid, concealed 
between that mass, began to glow through the range 
of the heavens. . . . 

"But an animated being, more holy than these, 
more fitted to receive higher faculties, and which 
could rule over the rest, was still wanting. Then man 
was formed. Whether it was that the Artificer of all 
things, the original of the world in its improved state, 
framed him from divine elements, or whether the 
earth, being newly made, and but lately divided from 
the lofty aether, still retained some atoms of its kin- 
dred heaven, which, tempered with the waters of the 
stream, the son of lapetus {la-pet) fashioned after the 
image of the gods. . . . Thus, that which had 
been lately rude earth, and without any regular shape, 
being changed, assumed the form of Man." 

Now, picture to yourself the nebular, chaotic mass, 
extending to the limits of the solar system, out of 



History of Ancient Egypt 65 

which the primeval sun, the planets, and the present 
sun were evolved, or formed, and every word of the 
above quotation will immediately become intelligible. 
Sea, earth, and air were heaped together in the same 
place, an inert, chaotic mass. As yet there was no sun, 
no moon, no earth. Land, sea, and air were mixed 
and combined in one confused mass. "The earth was 
without firmness," that is, the entire mass was still 
in a nebular state. The stars were obscured by this 
cloudy envelope, and it was not until the air, sea, and 
earth had been separated, etc., that they first shone 
forth. 

The earth was gathered up in the form of a vast 
globe, and was suspended in space, balanced by its 
own weight. The "lifting up" of the equatorial mass, 
in the form of a ring, is omitted, but the process by 
which the collapsed ring gathered together in the form 
of a globe is described as the result of the attraction 
of gravitation. The earth was more weighty than the 
air and water, attracted the more ponderous atoms to 
it, and was pressed together by its own gravity. The 
law by which the "heat atoms," here called "the ele- 
ment of the vaulted heaven, fiery and without 
weight," were gradually "pressed out" of the more 
weighty mass, and forced to the highest regions, is 
obscurely hinted at. The Artificer, who divided the 
mass, and formed it into sun and planets, is not named, 
because he was Ptdh; and Hephaistos, or Vulcan, 
would not answer the purpose, according to Roman 
notions. But when we come to the creation of Man, 
5 



66 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

the allusion to "the waters of the stream'' (Nile) and 
"the son of lapetus" {la-pet^ "foreign la''), stamp the 
entire account as distinctly Egyptian. 

Moses and Ovid both followed the ancient Egyp- 
tian account of the formation of the solar system and 
the creation of man, which has led many to suppose 
that Ovid copied from Moses. The Golden Age, in 
which man practiced faith and rectitude {anch and 
maat) of his own accord, without any avenger and 
without laws, and in which punishment, and the fear 
of it, did not exist, etc., is exclusively Egyptian — the 
glorious age of the Achiu, Manes, or "Saints," the 
"Ancient of Days," when there were no human rulers, 
when the "people of the saints" recognized no ruler 
but God alone. 

PRESENT STATE OF EGYPTIAN 
CHRONOLOGY 

The present state of Egyptian chronology, the di- 
vergent and conflicting views upon the subject which 
have been published to the world by eminent Egyp- 
tologists, and the hopeless confusion and obscurity 
in which it seems to be still enveloped, are well ex- 
pressed in the following extract from the excellent 
"History" of Rawlinson: 

"It is a patent fact, and one that is beginning to ob- 
tain general recognition, that the chronological ele- 
ment in the early Egyptian history is in a state of 
almost hopeless obscurity. Modern critics of the best 
judgment and the widest knowledge, basing their con- 



History of Ancient Egypt 67 

elusions on identically the same data, have j)ublished 
to the world views upon the subject which are not 
only divergent and conflicting, but which differ in the 
estimates that are the most extreme, to the extent 
of above three thousand years. . . . The Egyp- 
tians had no era. They drew out no chronological 
schemes. They cared for nothing but to know how 
long each incarnate god, human or bovine, had con- 
descended to tarry upon the earth. They recorded 
carefully the length of the life of each Apis-bull, and 
the length of the reign of each king; but they neg- 
lected to take note of the intervals between one Apis- 
bull and another, and omitted to distinguish the sole 
reign of a monarch from his joint-reign with others. 
A monarch might occupy the throne ten years in con- 
junction with his father, thirty-two years alone, and 
three years in conjunction with his son — in an Egyp- 
tian royal hst, he will be credited with forty-five years, 
although his first ten years will be assigned also to 
his father, and his last three to his son. Contemporary 
dynasties, if accepted as legitimate, will appear in an 
Egyptian list as consecutive, while dynasties not so 
accepted, however long they may have reigned, will 
disappear altogether. . . . 

''Generally speaking, the Egyptian monumental 
lists are not chronological at all ; the only one which 
is so, the Turin papyrus, exists in tattered fragments, 
the original order of which is uncertain, while the no- 
tices of time, which it once contained, are, in many 
cases, lost or obliterated. ... It may be added 
that the chronological element is altogether wanting 
in the earlier part of the papyrus, while, as the papyrus 
itself belongs to the time of the Eighteenth Dynasty, 
it furnishes no materials at all, either for the chro- 
nology or the history of the later kingdom. These 
many and great defects of the Turin papyrus 1 is 



68 A Self-Verifying Chronological 

quite impossible to supply from any other monu- 
mental source. Occasional correction of the numbers 
given in the papyrus may be made from the annals 
of the kings; but there is no possibility of filling up 
its gaps from the monuments, nor of constructing 
from them alone anything like a consecutive chrono- 
logical scheme, either for the Early, the Middle, or 
even the Later Empire. The Middle Empire — that 
of the Hyksos — left no monuments at all; and from 
the monuments alone no estimate of its duration can 
be formed. The Early and the Later Empires left 
important monuments ; but not a continuous series of 
them ; and the result is that, even for the last, a monu- 
mental chronology is absolutely unattainable." 

The foregoing extract is a fair sample of the man- 
ner in which the subject of Egyptian chronology 
has been viewed, studied, and treated. 

In speaking of Manetho, Rawlinson says he wrote 
for the information of the Greeks, then recently settled 
in Egypt as the dominant race, a history of his coun- 
try, which was confessedly complete, and, in a certain 
sense, continuous, and which contained a vast num- 
ber of chronological statements, though nothing like 
a definite chronology, adding: 

"Manetho's work was not so much a history 
of Egypt as a history of the Egyptian kings, 
whom he divided into thirty dynasties, which he 
treated of separately, apparently without distinctly 
marking whether they were contemporaneous or 
consecutive. Against each king's name was set 
the number of years that he reigned ; and at the 
close of each account of a dynasty these years were 



History of Ancient Egypt 69 

added together and the total sum given. The im- 
perfection of the method was twofold. Joint-reigns 
were counted as if they had been successive in the 
summation of the years of a dynasty; and contem- 
porary dynasties not being in many cases distinctly 
marked, the sum total of all the years of the dynasties 
was greatly in excess of the real period during which 
the monarchy had lasted. . . . 

"Finally, it has to be borne in mind that Man- 
etho's chronological statements, even when fully as- 
certained by the agreement of all the epitomes, are 
not unfrequently contradicted by the monuments, 
and, consequently, rejected by all modern critics. 
This occurs even in the later part of the history, where 
the dates are, as nearly as possible, certain. If 
Manetho could make mistakes with respect to the 
reigns of kings who were removed from his time by 
no more than three centuries, how can he be im- 
plicitly trusted with respect to reigns at least twenty 
centuries earlier?" 

Such opinions as these are based upon careless, 
superficial, and unscientific examinations of the badly 
corrupted lists, which were originally extracted from 
Manetho's History by some unknown Jewish, or 
Christian, author, and afterwards copied and trans- 
mitted by Josephus, Africanus, Eusebius, and others. 
Manetho is not responsible for the errors to be found 
in the present lists, for, as we shall see, many of them 
antedate Josephus, whose partial list is the earliest we 
possess. 

Brugsch, one of the most distinguished Egyp- 
tologists, after calling attention to the difference of 



70 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

2,079 years between the highest and lowest estimate 
of the date of the accession of Mena, *'the first king of 
Egypt," adds : "Instead of growing less, the difEculties 
in determining the chronological relations of Egyp- 
tian history are on the contrary multiplied from day 
to day; for new problems, the solution of which has 
still to be waited for, are continually presenting them- 
selves in the province of investigations about chro- 
nology." 

After trying to show that in the Turin papyrus the 
joint-reigns of the kings of the Twelfth Dynasty were 
counted twice, which I shall show is an error, he ex- 
presses himsel as follows: "From this particular case 
the reader will be able to form some idea of the kind 
of difficulties with which science has to contend at 
every step in order to compose a perfect picture of the 
succession and dates of the old Egyptian reigns. . . . 
This old usage places such difficulties and doubts in the 
way of researches thousands of years after the events 
as to drive one to downright despair of putting to- 
gether a consistent historical chronology of the Egyp- 
tian Kingdom." I may add that Brugsch, discarding 
all known chronological systems, bases his own chro- 
nology entirely on the supposed sequence of gener- 
ations, estimating three generations to a century. I 
am far from wishing to criticise the men of science 
who have unlocked the sealed book of ancient Egypt, 
and founded the science of modern Egyptology. Be- 
ginning with Champollion and Lepsius, and coming 
on down to Brugsch and Maspero, I regard them all 
with feelings of profound admiration and gratitude, 



History of Ancient Egypt 71 

and know that their work will endure as one of the 
most brilliant achievements of the human intellect; 
but the science is necessarily progressive, for the his- 
tory and chronology of a period covering nearly four 
thousand years, is so complicated and involved, that it 
is a physical impossibility to master all the manifold 
details within the brief span of a few years. That 
which has been accomplished in this field during the 
latter half of this century is all-sufHcient to fill us with 
wonder and amazement. 

••THE SOTHIAC YEAR" 

We are told that the ancient Egyptians were al- 
together ignorant of the science of chronology, had 
no era, and, in fact, cared nothing for the chronolog- 
ical element in history. 

The fragments of the Turin papyrus, however, a 
document which was drawn up about the beginning 
of the Eighteenth Dynasty, although the present 
copy dates, most probably, from the reign of Seti I, 
show conclusively that the reigns of the kings of 
Egypt, from Mena, "the first king," to Apophis II, 
the last king of the Seventeenth, or Hyksos, Dynasty, 
were carefully registered in years, months, and days, 
so that one very essential element of chronology, at 
least, was certainly at hand from the beginning of the 
kingdom. 

But we expect to show that the basis of the chro- 
nological system of the ancient Egyptians was purely 
and strictly astronomical, and that the separate reigns, 
although accurate enough in themselves when placed 



72 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

together successively, were adjusted to the absolute 
astronomical eras and epochs. 

It is true that the regnal years of the Pharaohs 
were used in dating writings and inscriptions ; but this, 
of itself, was not inconsistent with an accurate chro- 
nological system. 

The same style prevails with regard to Acts of 
Parliament, etc., in England, where the Christian Era 
is in general use. 

The "risings" of the stars were carefully observed 
and registered in Egypt from the earliest times, 
notably the "Heliacal Rising of Sothis," or Sirius, 
which was celebrated as the Festival of the New Year. 

It was well known to the classical writers that the 
Egyptians were the first to cultivate the science of as- 
tronomy, to observe the risings of the stars and the 
eclipses of the sun and moon, and to register and pre- 
serve those observations in their temples. Aristotle 
tells us that the Egyptians preceded the Babylonians 
in the cultivation of this science. 

It is a most significant fact that the astronomical 
observations of the Babylonians, sent to Aristotle by 
Callisthenes, extended back 1,903 years only from the 
date of the conquest of Babylonia by Alexander, or, 
in other words, from 331 B. C. to 2234 B. C. We shall 
see that the foundation of the Kingdom of Babylon 
by Nimrod, the "son of Cush," took place after the 
Hamite Conquest of Egypt, or 2348 B. C. A local 
'Aamu, or Hamite, Government, was established in 
Egypt about one hundred years before this date, and 
it was by these, and not by the invaders, that the 



History of Ancient Egypt 73 

Babylonian Kingdom was founded. I am convinced 
that the date 2234 B. C, when the astronomical ob- 
servations in Babylonia began, marks the beginning 
of the Babylonian Kingdom. Before this date there 
was no kingdom on the Egyptian model in Babylonia 
and Mesopotamia. Now, as the astronomical ob- 
servations in Babylonia do not extend back farther 
than 2234 B. C, it will be seen that astronomy was 
cultivated in Egypt at least two thousand years be- 
fore it was carried to Babylonia by the Cushite Nim- 
rod. 

Long before the ancient Empire of Egypt was 
founded by Mena, the Egyptians, as we have seen, 
had determined the length of the year, and had di- 
vided it into twelve months of thirty days each, to the 
last of which five extra, or intercalary, days were 
added. This year of three hundred and sixty-five days 
was the ordinary, or vague, year, and was used in the 
ordinary transactions of life, in the dating of inscrip- 
tions, and, perhaps, in fixing some of the monthly 
festivals. The months were divided into three weeks 
of ten days each. Besides the vague year, the Egyp- 
tians had a sacred year of three hundred and sixty- 
five and one-fourth days, the beginning of which was 
determined by the "risings" of the fixed stars, the 
sun's position in the heavens, etc. Diodorus mentions 
this sacred year of three hundred and sixty-five and 
one-fourth days in the following passage: 

"The Thebans boast that they were the most an- 
cient philosophers and astronomers of any people in 
the world — the situation of their country being such 



74 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

as gave them an advantage over others in clearly dis- 
cernmg the rising and setting of the stars; that the 
months and years are most properly ordered and dis- 
posed by them, for they measure their days accord- 
ing to the motion of the sun, and not of the moon, 
and account thirty days to every month, and add five 
and one-fourth days to every twelve months, and by 
this means they complete the whole year. . . . 
But these of Thebes seem most accurately to have ob- 
served the eclipses of the sun and moon." 

The ordinary, or vague, year of three hundred and 
sixty-five days, in common use among the Egyptians 
from the earliest times, was nearly a quarter of a day 
short, so that the "Rising of Sothis," and the fixed 
year also, advanced one day every four years. In 
other words, the years, seasons, and months of the 
ordinary, or vague, year receded one day in four years. 
We remedy this discrepancy by intercalating one day 
each fourth, or leap, year. If we should cease to do 
this, our years and months would likewise recede one 
day in each four years, one month in each one hun- 
dred and twenty years, and one complete year in each 
fourteen hundred and sixty years. This can be veri- 
fied by a simple calculation, for, if the year would re- 
cede one day in four years, it would necessarily recede 
three hundred and sixty-five days in (365X4) four- 
teen hundred and sixty years. 

The failure of the ancient Egyptians to intercalate 
this additional day at tlie end of each four years, 
caused the ''Rising of Sothis" to advance one full 
month of thirty days in one hundred and twenty years, 
one full season of four months in four hundred and 



History of Ancient Egypt 75 

eighty years, and one full year, including the five 
intercalatory days, in fourteen hundred and sixty 
years, or fourteen hundred and sixty-one vague years. 
This year of fourteen hundred and sixty-one vague 
years was called the ''Great Year," or ''Sothiac Year," 
and these months of one hundred and twenty years 
were called Hantis, or Sothiac months. The Sothiac 
months bore the same names as the ordinary months, 
and were sacred to the same so-called deities. The 
reigning Pharaoh, the successor of Horus on the 
throne of Upper and Lower Egypt, was identified 
with Ra, or the sun, and supposed to occiipy the same 
position in the Sothiac year. 

When the "Heliacal Rising of Sothis" took place 
on the first day of the first month of the year, called 
Thoth, a new Sothiac year commenced. The Pharaoh 
who happened to sit on the throne at the beginning 
of a new Sothiac year, was considered to be excep- 
tionally fortunate. He was termed ''nem-mestu^ "re- 
born," or ^^nem-chau,^' "re-crowned." It seems that 
these Sothiac eras were named in honor of the Pha- 
raoh who happened to reign at the time. The class- 
ical writers mention the "Era of Menophres," which 
was the Horus-title of a King Ramesses, who reigned 
at the beginning of the era 1324 B. C. Menophres 
is the Greek form of Mer-nu-pKra, meaning "Beloved 
by the Sun." The Sothiac era 4244 B. C, as we shall 
see, marks the reign of Mena, the first king of Egypt, 
and the Sothiac era 2784 B. C. fell in the reign of 
Amenemes I. 

The coincidence of the era was carefully noted. 



76 A Self-Verifying Chronological 

Thus Mena reigned sixty-two years after the era 4244 
B. C, Amen-em-het I reigned sixteen years before and 
thirteen years after, the era 2784 B. C, and Ramesses 
Mer-nu-pKra reigned seven years before, and twenty- 
nine years after, the era 1324 B. C. In fact, the 
ofificial registers showed how many years, months, 
and days each of these kings reigned before, and after, 
these eras, but, unfortunately, the years only have 
come down to us. 

In the same way, the king who happened to reign 
at the beginning of a new Sothiac month, or hanti, of 
one hundred and twenty years, was distinguished as 
an "epoch-king," and received an epoch-title, to mark 
him as such. 

Before we go into particulars, however, it will be 
necessary to say a few words about Manetho, the 
native Egyptian priest who published a History of 
Egypt, in three books, at the beginning of the reign 
of Ptolemy Philadelphus, or about 287 B. C. 

MANETHO THE HISTORIAN 

Manetho was a native Egyptian priest, and, as 
such, learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians. He 
is called a 'Triest of Sebennytus," a city located near 
the center of the Delta. It seems that he lived at the 
court of Ptolemy Soter. It will be seen from my 
restoration of his chronological scheme, that he car- 
ried his chronology down to the year 287 B. C, which 
was the beginning of the reign of Ptolemy Phila- 
delphus. It is evident, from this fact, that he pub- 
lished his History of Egypt under the last-named Pha- 



History of Ancient Egypt 77 

raoh, and, as I assume, at the direction of his royal 
patron. He divided his history into three books, as- 
signing the first eleven dynasties to his first book, 
the Twelfth to the Nineteenth Dynasties, both in- 
clusive, to his second book, and the Twentieth to the 
Thirtieth Dynasties, both inclusive, to his third book. 
We shall see that he had good chronological reasons for 
this division of his dynasties, that the beginning of 
the Twelfth and Twentieth Dynasties coincides with 
the 'beginning of Sothiac eras, and that the throne 
did not pass to a new family at either of these 
times. 

Josephus says : "Manetho was a man who was by 
birth an Egyptian, yet he had made himself master of 
the Greek learning, as is very evident; for he wrote 
the history of his own country in the Greek tongue, 
by translating it, as he saith himself, out of their 
sacred records.'* 

In another place, Josephus says : ''Manetho prom- 
ised to interpret the Egyptian history out of their 
sacred writings." 

These allusions to Manetho and his work are as 
important as they are meager, because they demon- 
strate that the history which he translated into Greek, 
existed as part of the sacred records, or sacred writ- 
ings, of the Egyptians, and that he merely translated, 
or interpreted, it into Greek. 

Eusebius testifies that Manetho, the Egyptian, not 
only reduced the entire history of Egypt into a Greek 
form, but also their whole system of theology. 

Plutarch, in his treatise on Isis and Osiris, had oc- 



78 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

casion to mention Manetho several times, and, in one 
place, as living under Ptolemy Soter. 

Bunsen considers him "the most distinguished 
historian, sage, and scholar of Egypt — the man whom 
all our ancient authorities mention with respect." 

In his treatise against Apion, Josephus professes 
to quote several entire passages from Manetho's 
Egyptian History , although we shall see that what 
Josephus calls a verbatim quotation is nothing more 
than an extract or running commentary. 

yElian styles Manetho ''The Historian endowed 
with consummate wisdom." 

The discoveries now published in this work, how- 
ever, will serve to restore Manetho to his proper rank 
as an historian, and to demonstrate how accurate, 
truthful, and scientific his work must have been. 
When we contrast him with the Greek historians of 
his time, and consider that his chronological system, 
before it was corrupted by those who attempted to 
copy from it, was as accurate as the "Canon of 
Ptolemy," our admiration for him will be proportion- 
ately increased. 

It has been assumed that the early records, monu- 
ments, inscriptions, annals, and literature generally, 
of the Egyptians, were entirely destroyed by the Hyk- 
sos during their invasion and occupation of Egypt; 
but this assumption is not supported by the facts. Al- 
though the Hyksos may have destroyed much in the 
Delta, the destruction was not of that general and 
complete nature imagined. When Herodotus visited 
Egypt about 450 B. C, and when Manetho published 



History of Ancient Egypt 79 

his History of Egypt, about 287 B. C, monuments, 
monumental inscriptions, temple registers, annals, 
and historical records, reaching back to the earliest 
kings, and papyri containing literary, scientific, and 
sacred literature of all kinds, were plentiful through- 
out Egypt. Regarding this literature, we shall have 
many occasions to comment upon the simple, direct, 
and truthful way in which the Egyptians observed and 
described everything which came within their notice. 
This way of seeing, speaking, and writing qualified 
them admirably for the sober and important work 
of recording and transmitting truthful accounts of 
historical events. In this respect they were the exact 
opposite of the Greeks, whose enthusiasm, wild im- 
agination, and love of the marvelous, almost unfitted 
them for this task. It is for this reason that the works 
of the Greeks have proved to be of so little assistance 
in the field of ancient Egyptian history. Even Herod- 
otus himself, the so-called "Eather of History," again 
and again leaves the path of historical facts to regale 
us with fables and marvelous stories. Manetho not 
only professed to write his history from the monu- 
ments and sacred records, but he actually did so. 
Wherever the fragments of his work can be compared 
with existing monuments and inscriptions, we find 
that they agree with, and were originally taken from, 
such monuments and inscriptions. The lists and num- 
bers extracted from his work have suffered much at 
the hands of the early chronographers (who attempted 
to adjust them to certain artificial chronological 
schemes derived from Josephus) and careless copyists. 



8o A Self- Verifying Chronological 

Certain dynastic lists extracted from Manetho's 
work have come down to us in the "Chronocon" of 
Eusebius and the "Chronographia" of Georgius 
Syncellus. 

In addition to these lists, we possess lists of the 
Hyksos Dynasty, the Eighteenth Dynasty, and the 
first two kings of the Nineteenth Dynasty, extracted 
by Josephus from Manetho's History; a partial and 
somewhat corrupt list of the Eighteenth Dynasty, 
copied by Theophilus, presumbly from Africanus ; and 
an artificial and fraudulent list of separate reigns and 
epoch-reigns known as the 'Tseudo-Sothis List" of 
Syncellus, many of which may have been taken from 
Manetho's "Book of Sothis/' 

I think there can be no doubt that Manetho pub- 
lished a work on the Chronology of Ancient Egypt, 
based on the Sothiac eras and epochs, called the 
"Book of Sothis." This work, covering nearly four 
thousand years of history, could not, by any possible 
means, be compressed within the limits of the post- 
diluvian chronological schemes of the early Christian 
chronographers, and was, therefore, soon lost or de- 
stroyed, and a false work, bearing the same title and 
also ascribed to Manetho, was fraudulently substi- 
tuted for it. The fragments of the Turin papyrus, the 
Manethonian Lists themselves, and the List of Era- 
tosthenes, all show that the reigns of the Pharaohs 
were adapted to the Sothiac epochs, which served as 
absolute chronological points. 

Wherever we can clear up the errors and detect 
the changes in the lists, Manetho is sustained and 



History of Ancient Egypt 8i 

borne out by the monuments which have survived to 
our times. Much has been written about "joint- 
reigns" and about Manetho's failure to properly ap- 
portion them, but this rests wholly upon erroneous 
assumptions. It will be demonstrated that Manetho 
invariably extracted the true chronology from the 
joint-reigns, and no instance can be found in the lists 
where he has given a joint-reign to both father and 
son. To single out a few prominent examples: 
Amenemes I reigned sixteen years before the era 2784 
B. C, and thirteen years after it, that is, twenty-nine 
years altogether. These thirteen years include his 
joint-reign of about nine years with his son Usertasen 
I, who reigned altogether (that is, jointly with his 
father, alone, and jointly with his son) forty-five years. 
In other words, Usertasen I reigned jointly with his 
father about nine years, alone about thirty-three 
years, and jointly with his son, Amenemes II, about 
three years. Manetho gave Usertasen I the entire thir- 
teen years of his father's reign after the cycle 2784 
B. C, and the thirty-three years of his sole reign, to 
wit, forty-six years. Amenemes II has thirty-eight 
years, to wit, the three years of his joint-reign with 
Usertasen I and the thirty-five years of his sole reign. 
In the Pseudo-Sothis List, Usertasen I, there called 
Sesonchosis, has forty-nine years, and Amenemes II 
thirty-five years. Ramesses I, after reigning one year 
and four months alone, associated his son, Seti I, on 
the throne with him. After the death of Ramesses I, 
Seti I reigned many years alone, and then jointly with 
his son Ramesses II. Manetho apportioned these 
6 



82 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

joint-reigns as follows : Ramesses I, one year and four 
months, his sole reign; Seti I, fifty-nine years, his 
joint-reign with Ramesses I, his sole reign and his 
joint-reign with Ramesses II, and Ramesses II sixty- 
six years and two months, his sole reign, after the 
death of Seti I, and his joint-reign with Menophthah. 
It is manifest, from these examples, that Manetho 
understood how to apportion the joint-reigns so as 
to make his lists strictly chronological. 

The Sothiac eras and epochs, upon which the an- 
cient Egyptians based their chronology, registered 
themselves with unerring precision. We have just 
seen that the vague year of three hundred and sixty- 
five days, lacking, as it did, about six hours of being 
complete, dropped back, or receded, one day at the 
close of each four years, one month in one hundred 
and twenty years, one season of four months in four 
hundred and eighty years, and one entire year in one 
thousand four hundred and sixty-one years. The 
vague year, therefore, could be compared to a great 
astronomical clock, the hour-hand of which performed 
one complete revolution in fourteen hundred and 
sixty-one vague years. The Sothiac year was neces- 
sarily a great automatic, self-registering, chronolog- 
ical timepiece. Additional certainty, if required, 
could be obtained by observing the "risings" of the 
fixed stars, notably that of Sirius, the brightest and 
most familiar of them all. When Sirius rose just be- 
fore the sun on the first day of a month, at the ancient 
capital, Heliopolis, which was selected as the mean 
point of observation, every Egyptian knew that a new 



History of Ancient Egypt 83 

Sothiac month had commenced, and that one hundred 
and twenty years had rolled by since Sirius had risen 
**heliacally" on the first day of the preceding month. 
The system was both simple and accurate, and, as the 
entire nation helped to keep count of the days, 
months, and years, no mistake could possibly be made. 
A calculation based upon the number of years which 
were known to have elapsed since a given event, com- 
pared with the number of years during which suc- 
cessive Pharaohs were known to have reigned, could 
be tested at any time by observing the sun's position 
with respect to Sothis and other fixed stars. Under 
such a system mistakes were impossible. We find 
just the reverse of what modern Egyptologists have 
assumed. It is not true that the ancient Egyptians 
were ignorant of the science of chronology. On the 
contrary, by converting their year into a great, self- 
registering, astronomical clock, they provided for 
themselves a most accurate chronological system, al- 
though they were put to the inconvenience of seeing 
their year slowly revolve through all the seasons 
within the period of fourteen hundred and sixty-one 
years. 

According to the Christian era, as now estab- 
lished, the first day of Mesori of the third historical 
cycle coincided with the year 4 B. C, and the first 
day of Thoth, or the beginning of the fourth histor- 
ical cycle, with the year 136 A. D. ; but there can be 
no doubt that the birth of Christ coincided with the 
beginning of the month of Mesori, and that an error 
of four years was made in fixing our era. This ex- 



84 A Self-Verifying Chronological 

plains why we have used the years 4244 B. C, 2784 
B. C, and 1324 B. C, for the Sothiac eras, instead 
of 4240 B. C, 2780 B. C, and 1320 B. C. 

The rising of Sothis takes place in the latitude of 
Heliopolis about July 19-20. Now, as Sothis rose 
on the first day of Mesori at the beginning of our era, 
and on the first day of Thoth about 136 A. D., he 
again rose on the first day of Thoth in the year 1596 
(1600) A. D., on the first day of Paophi in the year 
1716 (1720) A. D., and on the first day of Athyr in the 
year 1836 (1840) A. D. The rising of Sothis on July 
19-20, 1896 (1900), therefore, coincided with the six- 
teenth day of Athyr, which is equivalent to 140+ 
1460-f 1 20-f 120+60=1900. We have, therefore, 
reached the year 1900 A. D., according to the correct 
astronomical reckoning, although we write it 1896. 

THE CHRONOLOGICAL NUMBERS OF 
JOSEPHUS 

The chronological scheme incidentally laid down 
by Josephus in his great work entitled "The Antiq- 
uities of the Jews," was received with such unbounded 
faith by the early Christian chronographers, and for 
this reason had such an injurious effect upon the 
Manethonian I^ists, that it will be necessary to ex- 
amine it briefly. 

The passages containing the most important 
chronological statements are the following: 

"Solomon began to build his temple in the fourth 
year of his reign, in the second month, which the 
Macedonians call Artemisius and the Hebrews Jur; 



History of Ancient Egypt 85 

five hundred and ninety-two years after the Exodus 
out of Egypt, but one thousand and twenty years 
from Abraham's coming out of Mesopotamia into 
Canaan; and after the Deluge one thousand four hun- 
dred and forty years; and from Adam, the first man 
who was created, until Solomon built the temple, 
there had passed in all three thousand one hundred 
and two years. Now, that year upon which the temple 
began to be built was already the eleventh year of 
the reign of Hiram; but from the building of Tyre 
to the building of the temple, there had passed two 
hundred and forty years." (Book 8, Ch. 3, Par. i.) 

''So the ten tribes of the Israelites were removed 
out of Judea nine hundred and forty-seven years after 
their forefathers were come out of the land of Egypt, 
and possessed themselves of this country, but eight 
hundred years after Joshua had been their leader, and, 
as I have already observed, two hundred and forty 
years, seven months, and seven days after they had 
revolted from Rehoboam, the grandson of David, and 
had given the kingdom to Jeroboam." (Book 9, 
Ch. 14, Par. I.) 

*'And after this manner have the kings of David's 
race ended their lives, being in number twenty-one, 
until the last king, who altogether reigned five hun- 
dred and fourteen years, and six months, and ten 
days: of whom Saul, who was their first king, re- 
tained the government twenty years, though he was 
not of the same tribe as the rest." (Book 10, Ch. 8, 
Par. 4.) 

*'Now the temple w^as burnt four hundred and 
seventy years, six months, and ten days after it was 
built. It was then one thousand and sixty-two years, 
six months, and ten days from the departure out of 
Egypt; and from the Deluge to the destruction of 
the temple the whole interval was one thousand nine 



C1? 



86 A Self-Verifying Chronological 

hundred and fifty-seven years, six months, and ten 
days; but from the generation of Adam until this 
befell the temple there were three thousand five hun- 
dred and thirteen years, six months, and ten days: 
so great was the number of years hereto belonging; 
and what actions were done during these years we 
have particularly related." (Book lo, Ch. 8, Par. 5.) 
"But the entire interval of time which passed from 
the captivity of the Israelites to the carrying away 
of the two tribes proved to be one hundred and thirty 
years, six months, and ten days." (Book 10, Ch. 9, 
Par. 7.) 

In Chapter 10, Book 20, speaking of the high 
priests, of whom there were thirteen before the build- 
ing of the temple, Josephus says : 

"Now the number of years during the rule of these 
thirteen, from the day when our fathers departed out 
of Egypt, under Moses their leader, until the building 
of that temple which King Solomon erected at Jeru- 
salem, were six hundred and twelve. After those thir- 
teen high priests, eighteen took the high priesthood 
at Jerusalem, one in succession to another, from the 
days of King Solomon until Nebuchadnezzar, King 
of Babylon, made an expedition against that city, and 
burnt the temple, and removed our nation into Baby- 
lon, and then took Josadek, the high priest, captive; 
the times of these high priests were four hundred and 
sixty-six years, six months, and ten days, while the 
Jews were still under the regal government." 

In his treatise against Apion, after vainly attempt- 
ing to show that the Expulsion of the Hyksos, de- 
scribed by Manetho, was the Exodus of the Hebrews, 
described by Moses, Josephus again says that Solo- 



History of Ancient Egypt 87 

mon built that temple six hundred and twelve years 
after the Jews came out of Egypt. 

The destruction of Jerusalem in the eighteenth 
year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar and the eleventh 
year of the reign of Zedekiah afifords us an astronom- 
ically-fixed point from which the above-mentioned 
numbers can be applied and tested. We know from 
the *'Canon of Ptolemy" and other sources, that the 
reign of Nebuchadnezzar commenced in the year 604 
B. C. The date, 586 B. C, now generally adopted 
for the Destruction of Jerusalem, is approximately 
correct. As the temple was burnt four hundred and 
seventy years after it was built, according to Josephus, 
we have 1056 B. C. as his date for the building of the 
temple, about the same date required by the four 
hundred and sixty-six years, six months, and ten days 
of the high priests. Taking his one thousand and 
sixty-two years from the Exodus to the destruction 
of Jerusalem, we find that his date for the Exodus 
was 1648 B. C. Of course, the six hundred and twelve 
years between the Exodus and the building of the 
temple would carry us back to 1668 B. C. 

The interval of 1,957 years between the Deluge 
and the destruction of the temple gives us 2543 B. C. 
as the date of the Deluge. In like manner, 3,513 
years from the generation of Adam fixed his begin- 
ning point at 4099 B. C. 

We have demonstrated in this work that the cap- 
ture of Samaria by Shalmanesar could not have oc- 
curred later than the year 721 B. C. The sum of 
one hundred and thirty years, six months, and ten 



88 A Self-Verifying Chronological 

days, therefore, for the entire interval between this 
event and the carrying away of the two tribes should 
be one hundred and thirty-six years, six months, and 
ten days. It is evident that the six of the months 
following immediately after the six of the years has 
led to the omission of the first six. There were about 
one hundred and thirty-six years, six months, and 
ten days between 721 B. C. and 586 B. C. Now be- 
ginning at the fixed date, 721 B. C, nine hundred and 
forty-seven years take us back to 1668 B. C. as the 
date of the Exodus, which is equivalent to six hun- 
dred and twelve years, instead of five hundred and 
ninety-two years, between the Exodus and the build- 
ing of the temple; two hundred and forty-seven years, 
however, to the capture of Jerusalem by Shishak 
would place this event at 968 B. C, which is about 
nineteen years short of the actual date. I think this 
is also owing to an error of some copyist. The fact 
that 247 follows immediately after 947 in Josephus 
indicates that the latter 47 is merely a repetition of 
the preceding 47, and that Josephus originally had 
two hundred and sixty-seven years, six months, etc., 
which would place the capture of Jerusalem by Shis- 
hak at 988 B. C. This is rendered probable by a mis- 
take made by Josephus himself. He says : "So Solo- 
mon died when he was already an old man, having 
reigned eighty years, and lived ninety-four." As the 
Bible fixes Solomon's reign at forty years, there is an 
error of at least forty years here. Having placed the 
beginning of Solomon's reign at (1056-I-3) 1059 B. C, 
Josephus must have fixed his death at about (1059 — 



History of Ancient Egypt 89 

80) 979 B. C, which makes the interval between the 
capture of Jerusalem and the carrying away of the 
ten tribes two hundred and fifty-eight, instead of two 
hundred and forty-seven years. 

The numbers from the building of the temple vary 
somewhat from those already given. The five hun- 
dred and ninety-two years to the Exodus agree with 
the date 1648 B. C, but the 1,440 years to the Deluge 
give us 2496 B. C, instead of 2543 B. C, while 3,102 
years to the generation of Adam give us 4158 B. C, 
instead of 4099 B. C. These small discrepancies are 
probably owing to errors in the present text. The 
errors committed by Josephus himself are apparent, 
and can be easily explained; but it would lead us be- 
yond the scope of this work to attempt it here. We 
simply wish to restore the chronology of Josephus as 
he had it, so as to show how it subsequently affected 
the Manethonian Lists. 

The duration of the Jewish Kingdom is placed at 
five hundred and fourteen years, which reaches back 
from 586 B. C. to iioo B. C, and would place the 
building of the temple forty-four years only after the 
accession of Saul. As Saul, according to Josephus, 
reigned twenty years and David forty years, there 
would be a slight discrepancy here. 

The principal dates of Josephus seem to be the 
following : 

Birth of Adam, 4158 B. C. 

Bxodus, 1648 B. C. 

Building of the Temple, 1056 B. C. 

Capture of Jerusalem by Shishak, 988 B. C. 

Capture of Samaria by Shalmanesar, 721 B. C. 

Destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, , 586 B. C. 



go A Self-Verifying Chronological 

Clemens of Alexandria, who could, with proper 
investigation, have easily ascertained the true astro- 
nomical dates from Manetho's History and other 
equally reliable sources, chose to blindly follow Jose- 
phus, and to adopt his highest date, 1668 B. C, for 
the Exodus. By a simple computation he ascertained 
this to be three hundred and forty-five years before 
the beginning of the Sothiac Era, 1324 B. C. When 
he says that the Exodus occurred three hundred and 
forty-five years before the Sothiac Era, he, therefore, 
simply means that the highest date fixed by Josephus 
for this event was three hundred and forty-five years 
before this era. 

Africanus himself seems to have placed the Ex- 
pulsion of the Hyksos and the beginning of the Eigh- 
teenth Dynasty at the correct dates, uninfluenced by 
the false theory of Josephus ; but subsequent redactors 
of his lists have evidently attempted to change them 
so as to place the beginning of the Eighteenth Dy- 
nasty at 1648 B. C, and Thuoris, or King Nile, at 
1 181 B. C, as we have shown in another chapter of 
this work. 

Although Eusebius fell into the error of placing 
Thuoris at 1181 B. C, he nevertheless placed the be- 
ginning of the Eighteenth Dynasty at 1723 B. C, 
and the Exodus under Achenaten. 

The strangest fact, however, connected with this 
chronology and the attempt of Josephus to convert 
the Expulsion of the Hyksos into the Exodus, is that 
modern Egyptologists still cling to the date 1648 
B. C. for the beginning of the Eighteenth Dynasty, 



History of Ancient Egypt 91 

although they are well aware that the expulsion of 
the Hyksos had no connection with the Exodus. 

MANETHO'S GENERAL CHRONOLOGICAL 
SCHEME 

According to Eusebius, Manetho assigned 13,900 
years to the "gods" and "heroes." He tells us that 
"primus ^gyptiorum deus Vulcanus fuit, qui etiam 
ignis repertor apud eos celebratur. Ex eo Sol : postea 
Agathodsemon : deinde Saturnus: turn Osiris: exin 
Osiridis frater Typhon : ad extremum Orus, Osiridis 
et Isidis filius. Hi primi inter ^gyptios rerum potiti 
sunt. Deinceps continuata successione delapsa est 
regia auctoritas usque ad Bytin per annos tredecim 
mille ac nongentos." 

This total of 13,900 years is the sum, in round 
numbers, of 11,985 years assigned to the "gods," and 
1,855 years assigned to the "heroes," which items, 
however, were originally 11,895 and 1,255. Eusebius, 
after expressing the opinion that these so-called years 
were in reality months, adds : 

Post deos regnavere heroes annis, 1255 

Rursusque alii reges dominati sunt annis, 1817 

Turn alii triginta reges Memphitse annis, 1790 

Deinde alii Tliinitse decern reges annis, 350 

Secuta est manium heroumque dominatio annis, . . 5813 
Sumna temporum in iiooo consurgit annorum. 

It is evident, at first view, that these items no 
longer appear in their original order; "Other Kings" 
now precede the "Memphite Kings" and "Thinite 
Kings," while "Manes and Heroes" follow after the 
human kings. 



92 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

The correct succession was as follows : 

Dominion of the gods, Ptah, etc., 11,895 years 

Heroes, or manes {a<:>^/?^, "saints "), 1,255 " 

Total (9 Sothiac cycles), 13,149 " 

"Ten Thinite kings," 350 " 

(?) "Memphite kings," 1,797 " 

"Other kings," 1,810 " 

The first historical cycle commenced 4244 B. C, 

and the 1,255 years of the "manes," or heroes, end at 

this date. The last item, "manes and heroes," is an 

absurdity upon its face. The sum, 5,813 years, is 

made up of the following items : 

Heroes, 1,855 years 

Thinite kings, 350 " 

Memphite kings, 1,797 " 

Other kings, 1,810 " 

Total of heroes and men^ 5,813 " 

Here, as in other parts of his extracts from 
Manetho, Eusebius mixes separate items, sub-totals 
and grand totals together in hopeless confusion. It 
is almost as if the items had been written on separate 
slips of paper, placed in an urn and thoroughly mixed, 
and then drawn out blindfolded. 

In transcribing the transposed items, 1,797 and 
1,810, they were changed to 1,817 ^^^ 1.790- 

The actual sub-totals, therefore, were: 

Gods and manes, 13,^49 years 

Human kings, 3,957 " 

Grand total, 17,106 " 

Eusebius obtained his round number 13,900 by 

adding 11,985 and 1,855, ^^^ ^is round number 



History of Ancient Egypt 93 

11,000 by adding 1,255, 350^ 1.790^ i.8i7» «^c? 5.^^5- 
His grand total of 24,900 years, therefore, is the sum 
of 13,900 and 11,000. 

''Sed revera dominatio, quam narrant ^gyptii, 
deorum, heroum et manium tenuisse putatur lunares 
annos omnino viginti quatuor mille et nongentos, ex 
quibus fiunt solares anni 2206." 

As Eusebius had effectually disposed of Manetho's 
troublesome chronology by reducing his Egyptian 
years to lunar months, he was not very particular 
about copying the items. 

The Egyptian priests informed Herodotus, about 
450 B. C, that ''it was 17,000 years before the reign 
of Amasis, when the number of their gods was in- 
creased from eight to twelve." (Hist. H, 43.) Now, 
as 17,000 is a round number, and the 17,106 years 
extend down to 287 B. C, the beginning of the reign 
of Ptolemy Philadelphus, the two estimates seem 
to be one and the same. The Sothiac cycles of the 
gods and heroes (11,895+1,255=13,149) came to a 
close at the Sothiac Era, 4244 B. C, the adopted date 
of the beginning of the kingdom in Egypt. This date 
is verified and sustained by all the following dates, 
checked by the totals, epochs, and separate reigns: 

Bra of Mena, beginning of first historical cycle, 4244 B. C. 
" Ten Thinite kings," 35° 

Beginning of first Mempliite Dynasty, . . 3894 B. C. 
(?) "Memphite kings," i797 

Beginning of Hyksos Dynasty, 2097 B. C. 

" Other kings," 1810 

Ptolemy Philadelphus, 287 B. C. 



94 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

Each of the above dates marks a turning point in 
Egyptian history: 4244 B. C, the estabhshment of 
the Kingdom by Mena; 3894 B. C, the beginning of 
the first Memphite Dynasty; 2097 B. C, the begin- 
ning of the great 'Aamu or Hyksos Dynasty; and 287 
B. C, the accession of Ptolemy Philadelphus, under 
whom Manetho published his history. 

The date 3894 B. C. is verified by the much dis- 
cussed but little understood total of 3,555 years to 
the end of the second Nectanebos' reign, that is, to 
339 B. C. 

The 1,255 years of the "manes" (Achiu or "saints") 
extend back from 4244 B. C. to 5500 B. C, the date 
fixed on by Africanus and other early Christian chro- 
nographers for the Birth of Adam. In the course of 
time some one changed 1,255 to 1,855, ^^^ 115895 
to 11,985. In addition to this, the separate items 
were transposed and confused, so that they became 
almost unintelligible upon their face. Although Eu- 
sebius has 1,255 instead of 1,855 years for the manes 
or heroes, the total, 5,813, which is the sum of 1,855, 
350, 1,797, ^^^ 1,810, shows that it also appeared as 
1,855. I^he language itself, "Secuta est manlum 
heroumque dominatio annis 5813," indicates that it 
was the total of "manes," or heroes, and human kings, 
for "manes and heroes" are synonymous terms. It is 
manifest that Manetho could not have been guilty of 
such a stupid combination as "manium heroumque." 
We are not interested in the first period of 11,895 
years, during which the sun and planets were sup- 
posed to have ruled over Egypt. Our remarks on 



History of Ancient Egypt 95 

the ancient Egyptian theory of the formation of the 
solar system will sufifice on this subject. We have 
no reason to suppose, however, that the 1,255 years 
assigned to the dominion of the "manes," achiu, or 
"saints" are not historical. These "saints," called 
"manes," "heroes," "nekyes," etc., are referred to in 
Bible prophecy. The downfall of monarchical gov- 
ernment and the restoration of the government of the 
people — this Golden Age of tradition — is foretold by 
Daniel (ch. vii, 26, 2"]) in the following words : 

"And judgment shall sit, that his power may be 
taken away, and be broken in pieces, and perish even 
to the end. And that the kingdom, and power, and 
the greatness of the kingdom, under the whole heaven, 
may be given to the people of the 'saints' of the Most 
High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and 
all kings shall serve him, and shall obey him." 

According to another translation, it is : 

"But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take 
away his dominion, to consume and destroy it unto 
the end. And the kingdom and dominion, and the 
greatness of the kingdom tmder the whole heaven, 
shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most 
High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and 
all dominions shall serve and obey him." 

This must be interpreted in connection with what 
was foretold concerning the fourth great beast, or 
kingdom, which made war against the saints, and pre- 
vailed over them, until the Ancient of Days came, 
and judgment was given to the saints of the Most 
High, and the saints obtained the kingdom. 



96 A Self-Verifying Chronological 

Osiris was styled the Ancient One (Uon-as), the 
Ancient of Days; but as the prophecy can not refer 
to Osiris, this title was used to describe the first, or 
most ancient, period of civilized man's existence upon 
the globe, when the government was vested in the 
saints or the people of the saints, and all dominions 
served and obeyed God instead of human kings. 

The Pyramid Texts abound in references to these 
"saints," called "achiu/' which signifies "luminous 
ones" or "glorified ones." This fundamental con- 
ception of "luminous" has always attached to "saints," 
as demonstrated by the symboHcal halo encircling 
their heads, which is never wanting in ancient ortho- 
dox pictures of the saints. 

The inscriptions in the pyramid of Unas, dating 
from ca. 3146 B. C, show that at this early date the 
saints were already regarded as extremely ancient, 
and were venerated next after the gods. The Egyp- 
tians always admitted that their language and com- 
plicated system of writing, and their arts, sciences, 
and religious notions had come down from the saints, 
in all their primitive perfection; and a careful study 
of the ancient monuments verifies this in every par- 
ticular. The Shemsu-Har, or Shesu-Har, "Followers 
of Horus," also mentioned on the monuments, may 
be the "saints ;" but I still have some doubt as to their 
identity. The First and Second Dynasties of The- 
onites reigned at An-mi, or Heliopolis, the most an- 
cient capital of Egypt, and this city was sacred to 
Horus in all his forms. The damming of the western 
arm of the Nile, the foundation of Memphis, and the 



History of Ancient Egypt 97 

construction of such monuments as the Sphinx, the 
Pyramids of Kochome, and the Temple of the Sphinx, 
followed by the works of the Third and Fourth Dy- 
nasties, show that the arts and sciences had reached 
their perfection before the kingdom was established. 
The first king of the Memphite line erected the 
step-pyramid of Sakkara, which is, next to the Sphinx, 
one of the most ancient works to be found in the 
world. His name, Niiter-achi, or "Netherochis," still 
appears above the door of the sepulchral chamber. 

MANETHO'S GRAND TOTAL OF 3,555 YEARS 

Syncellus has the following passage: '■'' The period 
of II J generations y described by Manetho iji his three 
volumes^ comprises a sum total ofj^^^§ years^ This 
sum has been correctly transmitted, for Syncellus 
reckons the 3,555 years from A. M. 1586 to A. M. 
5147; the discrepancy of six years, between these 
dates, being easily explained. Placing the birth of 
Adam at 5500 B. C, Syncellus reckoned the 3,555 
years from A. M. 1606 to A. M. 5161 (A. M. 1586 to 

A. M. 5 141?) The ''sum total of 3, 555 years," there- 
fore, extended from 3894 B, C. to 339 B. C, or from 
the beginning of the Memphite Kingdom to the end 
of the last Nectanebos' reign. There can be no doubt, 
either, that the one hundred and thirteen generations 
^^d 3^555 years were derived from Manetho; for we 
know, from other sources, that his history was written 
in three books. The three hundred and fifty years 
of the "Ten Thinite Kings," extending from 4244 

B. C. to 3894 B. C. (A. M. 1256 to A. M. 1606), eluci- 

7 



98 History of Ancient Egypt 

date and sustain the succeeding total of 3,555 years. 
One set of totals has been recovered from Eusebius; 
the other total, fitting it like a piece of mosaic, comes 
from Syncellus, who, no doubt, copied it from Afri- 
canus. 

When we come to the epoch-reign of the first 
Nectanebes {Necht-har-heb "Nectarebes") which dates 
from the epoch 364 B. C, we shall see that the 
above date, 339 B. C, is absolute. 

Epoch of Pachons, 364 B. C. 

Nectarebes, as "Amyrtaios," 6 

358 B. C. 
Tecs, 2 

356 B. C. 
Nectanebos {Necht-neb-ef), 18 

338 B. C. 

In adapting the separate reigns to the Sothiac 
epochs, an apparent error of one year is often unavoid- 
able, for the reason that the reigns, as transmitted to 
us in the lists, are reduced to years, although Manetho 
originally gave them accurately in years, months, and 
days. 



PART II 



A Self-Verifying Chronological History of 

Ancient Egypt, from the Foundation of 

the Kingdom to the Beginning of 

the Persian Dynasty 



A BOOK OF STARTLING DISCOVERIES 



GRAND TOTALS OF MANETHO'S FIRST 
BOOK 

According to the present lists, including the "Ar- 
menian Version" of Eusebius, the total number of 
kings in Manetho's first book was one hundred and 
ninety-two, and the total number of years 2,300. In 
the main, or chronological, line there were, including 
Amenemes (sixteen years of whose reign belong in 
the first cycle and first book), fifty-three kings and 
1,460 years, as follows: 



Dynasties. 


Kings 


Sub-totals. 


Years. 


Total. 


First Thinite, 

Second Thinite, 

Fourth Memphite, 

Fifth Memphite, 

Sixth Blephantinean, .... 

Seventh Memphite, 

Eighth Memphite, 

Amenemes I, 


8 

I 

8 
6 
6 

9 

I 


12 
21 
22 


17 
23 
31 

37 
43 
52 
53 


263 
302 

284 
248 
.,8 

142 
16 


565 

849 

1097 

1295 
1301 

1443 
1459 



99 





Years. 


(9) 


214 


(5) 


409 


(19) 


185 


(6) 


43 



100 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

Adding one additional year, which was omitted 
by Africanus in reducing the "extra" months and 
days of Manetho to years, we have fifty-three kings 
and 1,460 years. But, as Africanus, by mistake, 
made the total of the First Dynasty two hundred and 
fifty-three instead of two hundred and sixty-three 
years, the total number of years appears to be 1,449. 
Now the side-lines foot up eight hundred and fifty- 
one years, making the grand total 2,300 years, as fol- 
lows : 

Dynasties. Kings. 

Third Memphite, 9 

Ninth Heracleopolite, .... 19 
Tenth Heracleopolite, .... 19 
Eleventh Theban, 16 

63 (39) 851 

Eusebius mistook several of these sub-totals for 
the totals of separate dynasties. Thus he gave the 
Fourth Dynasty seventeen kings, and the Sixth Dy- 
nasty (now Fifth), thirty-one kings, and confused the 
lists in many other ways. These mistakes reacted on 
the lists of Africanus through Syncellus, who placed 
them in juxtaposition. Manetho summed up, at the 
end of the Sixth Dynasty, just as the Turin papyrus 
does, and, as we shall see, there were good and suf^- 
cient historical reasons for doing this. Repeated sum- 
mation, between the Sixth and Twelfth Dynasties, 
has had the effect of throwing the present lists into 
a state of almost inextricable confusion ; but I did not 
rest until I had succeeded in restoring Manetho's 
chronological line, for it afforded me the means of 



Hist OR v of Ancient Eg ypt i o i 

clearing up the equally perplexing errors which have 
crept into the lists extracted from Manetho's second 
book, and still serve as a support to some of the most 
preposterous hypotheses to be found in the annals of 
ancient history. 

It is a most significant fact that, during periods 
of a divided kingdom, when there were no Pharaohs 
claiming to exercise universal dominion, the Man- 
ethonian lists fail to give the names or separate reigns 
of the kings. It seems that Manetho, in such cases, 
referred to the dynasties in a general way, merely 
giving the total number of kings and the duration 
of each dynasty. 

As we shall see, it is certain that he gave the exact 
duration in years of the most important historical 
periods, such as the four hundred and fifty-three years 
of Theban rule before the Hyksos Flood, and the 
five hundred and eleven years of Hyksos domination 
immediately after it. The fifty-three kings who 
reigned 1,460 years to the beginning of the Sothiac 
era, 2784 B. C, are the same mentioned by Diodorus, 
to wit : Menes (not Tepnachtis) and his fifty-two suc- 
cessors, who reigned 1,400 plus sixty-two years. 
These fifty-three kings and the remaining seven kings 
of the Twelfth Dynasty, making a total of sixty kings, 
now appear at the head of the Thirteenth Dynasty, 
where we shall have occasion to refer to them more 
particularly. 

Without going into details, I will state generally, 
that, as the five hundred and ninety-four years of the 
Ninth and Tenth Dynasties of Heracleopolis exactly 



I02 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

fill out the interval between the end of the Seventh 
Dynasty and the Hyksos invasion, I believe Manetho 
had them as follows : 

Dynasties. Kings, Years. 

Ninth, , .... 5 109 

Tenth, 19 485 

Eleventh, 6 43 

Third, 9 214 

39 851 

This gives us ninety-two instead of one hundred 
and ninety-two kings. The change from one hundred 
and nine to four hundred and nine, and from four 
hundred and eighty-five to one hundred and eighty- 
five, in my opinion, was made in copying the list, by 
carelessly transposing the characters: P (100) and 
Y (400), whereby P® (109) and YIIE (485) became 
Y© (409) and PHE (185). 

This mistake appears in Barbarus, who copied 
from Africanus; but as he has twenty (twenty-four?) 
kings for the two Heracleopolite Dynasties, he may 
have obtained the four hundred and nine from four 

hundred and eighty-five. 

After the number of kings in the Seventh Dynasty 
had been increased to seventy, the total, ninety-two, 
was raised to one hundred and ninety-two, the Eighth 
Dynasty was raised to twenty-one, a sub-total (now 
twenty-seven), the Ninth Dynasty to nineteen, and the 
Eleventh Dynasty to sixteen, the increase in the num- 
ber of kings being respectively (70 — 6) sixt3^-four, 
(21 — 9) twelve, (19 — 5) fourteen, and (16 — 6) ten, 
which gave them the required extra one hundred 
kings. 



History of Ancient Egypt 103 

Eusebius, in both versions, has four instead of 
five kings for the Ninth Dynasty. The solution of this 
apparent paradox can be found in Barbarus Scali- 
geri's extracts from Africanus, where such groupings 
as "Necherocheus, and eight others," ''Othoes, and 
seven others," etc., justify us in assuming ''Ochthoes 
and four others." In a case of this kind Eusebius 
would have been almost certain to get four instead 
of five kings; 

"TEN THINITE KINGS WHO REIGNED 350 YEARS" 

There were seventeen kings in Manetho's Eirst 
and Second Thinite Dynasties. The eight kings of 
the First Dynasty reigned two hundred and sixty- 
three years, beginning 4244 B. C, and ending 3981 
B. C. The nine kings of the Second Dynasty reigned 
three hundred and two years, beginning 3981 B. C, 
and ending 3679 B. C. The Third Dynasty, which 
was composed of Memphite kings, commenced to 
reign 3894 B. C, or eighty-seven years after the be- 
ginning of the Second Dynasty. The "ten Thinite 
kings who reigned three hundred and fifty years," 
therefore, were made up of the eight kings of the 
First Dynasty and first two kings of the Second Dy- 
nasty. The division of the kingdom and the estab- 
hshment of the Memphite line took place in the 
eleventh year of Binothris. The Second Dynasty at 
Heliopolis and the Third Dynasty at Memphis 
reigned contemporaneously, or side by side, two hun- 
dred and fourteen years; and both came to a close 
simultaneously 3679 B. C, when Senoferu, the first 



I04 A Self-Verifying Chronological 

king of the Fourth Dynasty, whose wife, Mertitefs, 
united the claims of both Hues, began to reign. 

Eusebius tells us expressly that the Thinite and 
Memphite kings reigned contemporaneously, as did 
the Ethiopian and Saite kings, and others also. This 
remark was not the supposition of Eusebius, but was 
derived from Manetho's work, for Eusebius intro- 
duces it by, ''We are told," etc. 

Although the Second Dynasty continued to reign 
two hundred and fourteen years after the Third Dy- 
nasty was estabHshed, Manetho naturally and logic- 
ally completed the former in his dynastic lists before 
he entered the latter. In the same manner he after- 
wards carried the Memphite line down to the close 
of the first cycle, 2784 B. C, before he took up the 
Heracleopolite and Theban side-lines, which date 
from about 2948 B. C. 

There were three Sothiac epochs in this period 
of three hundred and fifty years. The epoch-kings, 
Mena, Atoth, and Kebahu, bore the epoch-titles "Atho- 
this," *'Kenkenes," and "Uennephis," and, strange to 
say, these epoch-titles have been substituted by mis- 
take for the real names of the kings. Thanks to the 
New Table of Abydus, we are now prepared to clear 
up the many ridiculous mistakes to which this substi- 
tution has given rise. 

MANETHO'S FIRST DYNASTY OF BIGHT THINITE KINGS 

The "New Table of Abydus," engraved by order 
of Seti I about 1584 B. C, contains in perfect preser- 
vation the names of the first eight kings of Egypt, 



History of Ancient Egypt " 105 

the same assigned by Manetho to his First Dynasty. 
We are thus in possession of an ancient document, 
nearly 3,500 years old, by means of which we can 
detect the arbitrary changes made in Manetho's list 
by the early chronographers, through whose works 
the same has reached us. The second, third, and 
fourth names, or titles, in the Manethonian list differ 
so radically from the corresponding names in the 
table, that eminent Egyptologists, among them Mas- 
pero, have come to the conclusion that the Egyptians 
of Seti's times had no reliable accounts of these early 
kings, but depended on conjecture and vague tra- 
ditions. Before we go farther, however, we will place 
the table and list in parallel columns : 

Table of Abydus. Manetho's Ust. 

Mena, Menes, 62 years 

Tela, Athothis, 57 " 

Atoth, Kenkenes, 31 " 

Ata, Uen-nephis, 23 " 

Usapti, . Usaphaidos, 20 " 

Merbapen, .... Meibaes, 26 " 

Semsu, Semempses, 18 " 

Quebahu, Quebeches, 26 " 

It will be seen at once that all of these names cor- 
respond perfectly except the second, third, and 
fourth. Athothis, Kenkenes, and Uennephis are 
epoch-titles belonging to the three epoch-kings of this 
dynasty, Mena, Atoth, and Quebahu, and have been in- 
serted by some one in Manetho's list, where they 
now stand, in the place of Teta, Atoth, and Ata, prob- 
ably rendered Tithoes, Athothis, and Athoes by Man- 
etho. If the changes were made by the forger of the 



io6 A Self-Verifying Chronological 

pseudo-Sothis List, his purpose was, iirst, to cover up 
the fraud; and, second, to discredit Manetho's work. 
The effect, however, has been the reverse, for the 
epoch-reigns, inserted by him, furnish astronomically 
fixed points, from which the chronology of this period 
can be restored. The three epoch-reigns which have 
caused all this confusion will be treated of separately. 
It seems that the epoch-kings were mentioned in 
Manetho's history as well as in his book of Sothis, 
for Josephus, in his list of the Hyksos kings, has 
"Asses" instead of "Sethos" (Set-Nubti), the actual 
name of the king, and he copied the reigns, as he him- 
self tells us, from the second book of Manetho's his- 
tory, and not from the book of Sothis. Josephus also 
copied "Armais," the epoch-title of Thothmes III, 
from the same book, mistaking it for the name of a 
separate king. 

Menes himself was the epoch-king Athothis; but 
the fifty-seven years assigned to Athothis belonged 
to Tithoes. The presence of Athothis in Manetho's 
list led to his insertion in the list of Eratosthenes, im- 
mediately after Menes. The third king, Athothis, 
from Atoth, was then called Athothis II. He still has 
his original reign of thirty-two years, thirty-one of 
which were as epoch-king ''Kenkenes." The first 
Athothis, translated "Hermogenes," was Aa-tahu-ti, 
"Offspring of Thoth," although the Greek form of 
Atoth must have been Athothis also. As Mena 
reigned sixty-two years and Teta fifty-seven years, it 
required just one year of Atoth' s reign to fill out the 
Sothiac month of one hundred and twenty years, 



History of Ancient Egypt 107 

which leaves exactly thirty-one years for "Kenkenes." 
Adding the reigns of the succeeding kings to the 
thirty-one years of ''Kenkenes," we have one hundred 
and seventeen years to Quebahu, and need the first 
three years of his reign to complete the second one 
hundred and twenty years. This leaves twenty-three 
years for the epoch-reign of Quebahu. The total of 
the entire dynasty is two hundred and sixty-three 
years, or twice 120^1-23. 

Ata's reign must have been twenty-two years, 
which coincided very closely with the epoch-reign of 
twenty-three years substituted for it. 

The list can be restored as follows: 

Mena, 62 years " Athothis," ... 62 years 

Tela, 57 " 

Atoth, 32 " " Kenkenes," ... 31 " 

Ata, 22 " 

Usapti, 20 " 

Merbapen, ... 26 " 

Semsu, 18 " 

Quebahu, .... 26 '^ " Uennepliis," • . 23 " 

Total, . . , . 263 " 

The last king of this dynasty built the pyramids 
of Kochome (Ka-kem, ^'Black Bull"), mentioned by 
Manetho as still standing in his time. If there were 
any reason to doubt that these kings, from Mena on 
down, were actual historical kings, the pyramids 
erected by Uonnofer to mark the epoch of Athyr, 
4004 B. C, must be regarded as the very best evi- 
dence that Quebahu, at least, actually lived and reigned 
in the vicinity of Memphis or On. But the moment 



io8 A Self-Verifying Chronological 

we acknowledge the last king of the dynasty as his- 
torical, we are forced to admit the claims of all the 
rest. The reigns of these kings were carefully regis- 
tered. These registers showed how long each of them 
reigned in years, months, and days. The reigns them- 
selves were adapted to, and checked by, the Sothiac 
epochs, so that mistakes were almost impossible. 

These kings are now called "Thinite;" but the 
word itself came down in a somewhat different form. 
It was written "Theeinites" and "Theynites," show- 
ing that it was originally Theanites. The name was 
derived from Ta-dniity "the land of Anu/' which was 
pronounced Thednut in L^ower Egypt. The First 
Dynasty, therefore, was of Ta-dnu, and the city of 
Anu was the most ancient capital of Egypt. 

It has been contended that any chronological sys- 
tem which places Mena at the head of a Sothiac cycle 
is necessarily artificial, and must, therefore, be false. 
The date, 4244 B. C, was not the beginning of a 
Sothiac year, as originally arranged. In the fixed 
year Sirius rose heliacally on the first day of Phar- 
muthi, which corresponds to July 19th. When Mena 
became king the year had shifted around so that the 
rising of Sirius occurred on the first day of Thoth, 
which was six himdred and twenty years after the 
Sothiac year commenced. In other words, the year 
was normal about 4864 B. C, while the era dating 
from the accession of Mejia commenced about 4244 
B. C. The historical cycle, therefore, commenced 
six hundred and twenty years after the astronomical 
cycle. I believe this fact was expressly mentioned by 



History of Ancient Egypt 109 

Manetho, because there is evidence that the 1,255 
years of the "heroes" had been changed, at some time 
prior to Eusebius, to 1,855 years. Always bear in 
mind that the Egyptian year was normal when the 
fixed year, the vague year, and the Sothiac year coin- 
cided, which occurred about 4864 B. C, when the 
winter solstice coincided with the first day of Thoth, 
and Sothis rose heliacally on the first day of Phar- 
muthi; and that at the beginning of Mena's reign, or 
4244 B. C, Sothis rose heliacally on the first day of 
Thoth, and the winter solstice fell on the fifth day of 
Em-hir. It is evident that Mena would stand at 4864 
B. C. if he had been arbitrarily placed at the head of 
a Sothiac year. When Moses constituted the montH 
in which the Hebrews departed from Egypt the be- 
ginning of the Hebrew year, he simply imitated thes 
example of the Egyptians. 

The "Ten Thinite Kings" of Manetho's general 
scheme, who reigned three hundred and fifty years 
from 4244 B. C. to 3894 B. C, were made up of these 
eight kings and the first two kings of the Second Dy- 
nasty. They were preceded by the Achiu or "Saints," 
whose seat of government was also at On. As this 
period was afterwards referred to as the "Ancient of 
Days," the government of the "Saints" must have 
been a democracy. The buildings and monuments 
of Heliopolis, like those of Memphis, have disap- 
peared from the face of the earth, and were It not for 
the pyramids, mastabas, and tombs on the opposite 
edge of the Libyan hills, the existence of both during 
the Old Empire might have been doubted by over- 



no A Self- Verifying Chronological 

skeptical critics. Fortunately, we learn from the 
*'Stele of Cheop's Daughter" that the reclining sphinx 
was the emblem, in Chufu's time, of the youthful 
Horus in the second month of Paophi, just as ^'Ken- 
ken/' "very brave," was one of his distinctive titles. 
The "Great Sphinx," which was one of the wonders 
of the ancient world and a riddle to all the uniniti- 
ated, still stands in matchless grandeur to mark the 
epoch of Paophi, 4124 B. C, and to bear witness to 
the power, civilization, and titanic art of the immedi- 
ate descendants of the "Saints." King Atoth con- 
structed the Great Sphinx as the symbol of Horus, 
under his title of Ken-ken. Ata, the name of the fourth 
king, in the course of time became synonymous with 
"Great King." The kings of the "New Empire" 
chose the title AH, or Atai, in order to awaken in the 
hearts of their subjects increased feelings of awe and 
respect. The solution of the "riddle of the sphinx" 
was reserved for the close of the nineteenth century, 
so that it might follow immediately after the opening 
of the sealed book of ancient Egypt and the advent 
of the "Ancient of Days" in the "New World." 

According to the ancient records as interpreted 
to Diodorus by the Egyptian priests, the magnificent 
temples and palaces of the "Memphite Kings" did 
not equal those of the "former kings" in state or 
grandeur. Let the reader endeavor to form a mental 
image of the "Great Sphinx" as it must have ap- 
peared in its original perfection, and then compare 
it with the grandest statues erected by Amenophis 
III, Seti I, and Ramesses II, and he will feel inclined 



History of Ancient Egypt hi 

to believe that the temples and palaces erected at 
Heliopolls and Memphis by Mena, Tela, Atoth, and 
other kings of this dynasty were upon the same scale 
of grandeur. 

The solitary obelisk now standing on the site of 
ancient Ann was erected by Usertasen I of the 
Twelfth Dynasty, in front of the temple. The last 
vestiges of this temple have disappeared; but no one 
competent to judge would dare to deny that it stood 
there at the beginning of the second historical cycle, 
2784 B. C. 

We know that the people of ancient. Greece and 
Rome preserved and transmitted their history without 
engraving it in imperishable granite. Our own price- 
less literature is preserved in books of perishable 
paper. Now every candid person will admit that the 
ancient Egyptians, with their superior climate and 
favorable surroundings, might have preserved their 
history, etc., in writing on wooden tablets, or leather, 
and in books made of papyrus. Why, then, do schol- 
ars and critics persist in saying that the Egyptians 
had no authentic history, chronology, or literature of 
this period, when Herodotus, Plato, Eratosthenes, 
Diodorus, and other classic writers assure us that the 
records, annals, and papyri containing this literature 
were carefully preserved in the temples of Egypt, hun- 
dreds of which were to be found between Migdol and 
Syene? It is significant that the meager notices at- 
tached to the reigns of the Thinite kings, in the Man- 
ethonian lists, without exception, refer to Lower 
Egypt, and never mention "This" or Upper Egypt. 



112 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

It is true that the "South" is mentioned in the in- 
scriptions of the early kings of the succeeding Mem- 
phite Dynasty, but equally true that the "South" of 
this period was just above Heliopolis. At the end of 
the Fifth Dynasty, more than one thousand years after 
the accession of Menes, Osiris is called "Lord of 
Abydus;" but this Abydus may have been named after 
a more ancient Abydus of Lower Egypt. Many of 
the cities of Upper Egypt, like ''Ann of the South," 
were named after older cities of the Delta. Our own 
country abounds in examples of the same kind — cities 
named after cities of the Old World. As to Mena, all 
the authorities agree in calling him the "first king 
of Egypt." A fragment of the "Turin papyrus" styles 
him "the first" (lit. "head"). The foundation of 
Memphis was ascribed to him, and the name "Men- 
nofer/' "Pefect Station," seems to be derived from his 
name. The form Men-a is equivalent to the later 
Men-i. The root is men, "firm," "established." Thus 
men also meant "station" in the sense of "landing" 
or "harbor;" transportation in ancient Egypt being 
principally by water, in boats instead of wagons. 
Eratosthenes translates Menes "Aionios," showing 
the close relationship of the forms M en-no fer and 
Men-i. The contrast between the liquid ways and 
firm landings of ancient Egypt, the instability of the 
roads and the stability of the stations, emphasizes the 
deep meaning and significance of such names as 
Men-a and Men-no fer. 

According to a notice copied by Eusebius from 
Manetho's work, Mcna invaded a foreign country. 



History of Ancient Egypt 113 

No doubt this campaign was owing to incursions 
of neighboring nations. It required a united ef- 
fort on the part of the Egyptians to repel these 
attacks, and the invasion of the foreign country 
by Mena, Hke that of Meri-ra, was retahatory. The 
common danger, the success of the united effort, the 
subordination of the people generally to the will of 
the commander, led to the estabHshment of the king- 
dom. The extraordinary talents and abilities of the 
leader chosen by the people in the dark hours of com- 
mon danger, brought out into bold relief by the suc- 
cessful issue of the struggle, reconciled the people to 
the loss of their ancient liberty. When Herodotus 
visited Egypt about 450 B. C, there were sacred 
registers preserved in the temples, showing that Mena^ 
the first king of Egypt, in the first place protected 
Memphis by a mound, and then, beginning about one 
hundred stades above Memphis, dammed up the 
western arm of the Nile which then ran close to the 
Libyan hills, and, after the river had been confined 
to the main stream running through the middle of the 
valley, he built his new capital, Memphis, upon the 
site thus obtained. The notice in the Manethonian 
lists that "Athothis" constructed a palace in Mem- 
phis, agrees with the account read to Herodotus. 

According to Diodorus, Mena, "the first king of 
Egypt," taught the people the adoration of the gods, 
and the manner of divine worship; he also taught 
them how to adorn their beds and tables with rich 
cloths and coverings, and was the first to introduce a 

luxurious mode of living. Speaking of Mneuis (an- 
8 



114 A Self-Verifying Chronological 

other form of Menes), Diodorus says he was a man of 
heroic spirit, and famous in his generation; that he 
was the first who instituted laws, pretending that he 
had received them from Mercury (Hermes-Thoth) ; 
and that great benefits and advantages would accrue 
to the people from their observance. 

This author's account of the building of Memphis 
differs but slightly from that of Herodotus, if we only 
substitute Menes for Uchoreus, who is as much out 
of place here as Tephnachtes. He tells us that 
Uchoreus (Menes) built Memphis, the most famous 
city of Egypt. He chose the most convenient place 
for it in all the country, selecting the point where the 
Nile divided itself into several branches, and formed 
that part of Egypt called the Delta. The city, being 
thus conveniently situated at the head of the river, 
commanded all the shipping that sailed up it. The 
city was built one hundred and fifty furlongs in cir- 
cuit, and was made exceedingly strong and com- 
modious. As the Nile flowed around the city, and at 
the time of the inundation covered all the land to the 
south of it, Uchoreus cast up a mighty rampart of 
earth, both as a defense to the city against the raging 
waters, and as a bulwark against an enemy on land; 
and on the other sides he dug broad and deep 
trenches to receive the surges of the river, and filled 
every place around the rampart with water, which 
fortified the city to admiration. He also built palaces 
not inferior to others built elsewhere, but much below 
the state and grandeur of the former kings. The 
memoranda jotted down by Diodorus concerning 



HiSTOR Y OF Ancient Eg ypt i i 5 

Egypt were correct enough in themselves ; but he evi- 
dently lost the connection before he incorporated 
them in his history, where they are jumbled together 
in almost hopeless and inextricable confusion. For 
example, the following: ''They say the posterity of 
Tephnachthus, to the number of fifty-two, reigned 
for the space of 1,400 years, in which time there is 
nothing worthy of remark," relates to the fifty- two 
successors, in the direct line, of Menes, and was the 
total of Manetho's first historical cycle of 1,460 years. 
Of course, the concluding remark that nothing had 
been found relating to this long and eventful period 
which was worthy of remark, was a convenient way 
of disposing of matters and things too voluminous 
and troublesome to relate. We single out this ex- 
ample here to show that the sources from which Dio- 
dorus obtained the scraps to be found in his history 
were reliable, because there actually were fifty-three 
kings in the direct line, and 1,460 years from the 
accession of Mena, 4244 B. C, to the seventeenth year 
of Amenemes I, 2784 B. C, as shown by Manetho's 
Hsts and the native tables. 

After this digression, which is due to the example 
of Diodorus, the reader will understand how the scrap 
about the palaces built by some other king, which 
were "much below the state and grandeur of the 
former kings," came to be added on to the account 
of the building of Memphis by Mena, and how 
Uchoreus came to be substituted for Mena. 

Brugsch-Bey, following Linant-Bey, was satisfied 
that the great dike of Cocheiche is the same con- 



ii6 A Self-Verifying Chronological 

structed by Mena. This dike still renders valuable 
service to the inhabitants of Lower Egypt by restrain- 
ing the rush of the inundating waters. Large sluices 
in the dike are the only outlets for the water into the 
marshland around the site of ancient Memphis. By 
means of the dike and its sluices the water can be in- 
creased in the deeper basins, and the level of the river 
can be raised to the extent of three feet in the neigh- 
borhood of Cairo. 

According to Brugsch, this dike is two miles 
south of the site of ancient Memphis. As the *'fiU" 
made by Mena to dam the western arm of the Nile, 
was one hundred stades, or eleven miles, above Mem- 
phis, those authors who have confounded it with the 
dike of Chocheiche have made a grievous mistake. 
The dike is the ''mighty rampart" of Diodorus, the 
"mound" of Herodotus, the celebrated ''Anbu-het," 
"White wall," of the ancient inscriptions. 

According to the ancient native account, trans- 
lated for the benefit of Herodotus, Mena, in the first 
place, dammed up the western arm of the Nile which 
flowed along the Libyan Hills, just as the Bahr-Yusuf 
still does south of the Fayum. In this way, he re- 
claimed a marsh, and converted it into a well-pro- 
tected site for the future capital of the new kingdom. 
Thus we see that, besides being a great commander, 
statesman, and lawgiver, he was a genius in the arts 
essential to the welfare of the human race, and, al- 
though the poet has not yet been born who could 
adequately sing the praises of Mena, we are convinced 
that his dike and rampart and glorious capital sur- 



History OF Ancient Egypt 117 

passed the Great Sphinx and Great Pyramid as much 
as these do the statues and tombs of the Eighteenth 
and Nineteenth Dynasties. How do the agnostics 
and orthodox theologians explain these colossal 
works of practical utility, these astounding master- 
pieces of engineering science, under the first king of 
ancient Egypt, more than six thousand years ago? In 
the language of L. A. Wood, Kentucky's greatest 
philosopher, ''Egypt burst upon the world in history, 
a full-grown nation, with a full-blown civilization, in 
the flower of its matchless perfection.'* 

Is it a wonder, then, that the name of Mena, in 
the Minos of the Greek, Adam of the Hebrew, Menu 
of the Sanskrit, Mannus of the German, and Man of 
the Saxon, became as familiar as a household word? 

The Table of Sakkara contains but two of these 
kings, Mer-bapen and Quebahu. We do not know why 
the others were omitted, but it is possible that the 
kings of the Memphite Dynasty traced their descent 
through the two named. The fact that Manetho in- 
troduces a new dynasty after Quebahu goes to show 
that one line died out and another Hne took its place. 
We shall see that, during the two hundred and four- 
teen years of the parallel Thinite and Memphite Dy- 
nasties, kings selected from both dynasties afterwards 
served as "ancestors" to subsequent kings. In the 
Berlin Museum there is a medical papyrus containing 
the following passage: 

''This is the beginning of the sum of all methods 
for the cure of bad leprosy. It was discovered in a 
writing of very ancient origin, in a writing case, un- 



ii8 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

derneath the feet of the divine Anubis in the town of 
Sochem, at the time when the deceased Usapti was 
king. After his death, the writing was brought to 
the sanctuary of the deceased King Senda, on account 
of its miraculous power of healing." 

The town of Sochem was situated on the west 
bank of the Nile, nearly opposite Heliopolis. It was 
afterwards called I^etopolis. It thus appears that 
there was a shrine to Anubis, and, consequently, a 
temple, in the town of Sochem, as far back as the time 
of King Usapti. It is interesting to note that bad 
leprosy already prevailed at the very dawn of history, 
and that the sum of all the methods for its cure, which 
was considered as very ancient in Usapti's reign, was 
so far in advance of the methods in use when the 
papyrus was written that it was looked upon as mirac- 
ulous. We are not told where the sanctuary of King 
Senda was located, but the transfer of the writing 
from the place where it was found, in the reign of 
Usapti, agrees with the change of dynasty which had 
taken place, and with the presence of another line of 
rulers at Memphis. 

THE EPOCH-REIGNS OF THE FIRST 
DYNASTY 

We have just seen that Menes, "the first king of 
Egypt," headed the Sothiac year which commenced 
in 4244 B. C, when Sothis rose heliacally on the first 
day of Thoth of the vague year. This great era, there- 
fore, marks the establishment of the kingdom in 
Egypt, after the close of the dominion of the Ach-i-u, 



History of Ancient Egypt 119 

or ^'Saints," called ''Manes," ''Heroes/' etc., by the 
Greeks. As Thoth presided over the first quarter of 
the year, and over the first month also, Menes assumed 
the appropriate epoch-title "Athothis," which is, in 
old Egyptian, Aa-tahu-ti^ that is, "Hermogenes" or 
"Offspring of Thoth/' 

Menes' reign, according to Manetho and Eratos- 
thenes, was sixty-two years, and, since we know, from 
the Table of Abydus, that he was not succeeded by a 
son called "Athothis," but by Teta, it follows that he 
himself was the epoch-king Athothis. In fact, Aa- 
tahu-ti is not the proper name of a king, but a Sothiac 
title only. 

The two hundred and sixty-three years of the 
First Dynasty, extending, as they did, from 4244 
B. C. to 3981 B. C, covered three Sothiac epochs, 
to wit, Thoth, 4244 B. C, Paopi, 4124 B. C, and 
Athyr, 4004 B. C. In this state of case, we can as- 
sume that Manetho originally had three epoch-titles 
in this dynasty, in addition to the proper names of 
the eight kings. Some one, evidently Ignorant of the 
importance of these epoch-titles and epoch-reigns 
from the astronomical and chronological points of 
view, inserted them, by mistake, in Manetho's Eirst 
Dynasty in place of Teta, Atoth, and Ata. 

Now, going to the list of Eratosthenes, which 
was originally adjusted to the Sothiac epochs, but is 
now a mere wreck composed of fragments, some of 
which are out of place, we find, after Menes, with 
sixty- two years, and Athothis (?), with fifty-nine 
instead of fifty-seven years, a second Athothis with 



120 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

thirty-two years. This second Athothis, now wanting 
in the Manethonian Lists, is certainly Atoth, the third 
king of this dynasty, and his reign of thirty-two years, 
thus fortuitously preserved, turns out to be a most 
valuable Hnk in the chain of evidence sustaining and 
corroborating Manetho's chronology of the Old Em- 
pire. 

A simple computation will demonstrate that the 
epoch-reign of King Atoth was thirty-one years. 

Era of Menes, 4244 B. C. 

Menes, as epoch-king Athothis, 62 

4182 B. C. 
Teta (Tithoes), 57 

4125 B. C. 
Atoth, or Athothis II, before epoch, ...... i 

4124 B. C. 
Atoth, as epoch-king "Kenkenes," ..... 31 

4093 B. C. 

Athothis I has the original fifty-seven years of 
Teta's reign in Manetho's list, but Kenkenes has the 
epoch-reign of thirty-one years, instead of the full 
thirty-two years of Atoth. 

In order to understand the title Kenkenes, we 
must bear in mind that Horus, according to the an- 
cient symbolism, was born at the winter solstice, and 
went through the successive stages of growth and de- 
velopment, such as youth, manhood, old age, etc. 
In the month of Paophi the youthful Horus was fig- 
ured as a reclining sphinx gazing towards the east- 
ern horizon, and bore the title Ken-ken, ''Very Brave, 



>9 



HisTOR Y OF Ancient Eg ypt 121 

a duplication of ken, ^'brave," "kuehn." The reclining 
sphinx, Apis-bull, Nile, etc., were symbols of his dor- 
mant strength. In the representation on the so-called 
"Stela of Cheops' Daughter" Horus is pictured as a 
babe in Mesori, a boy wearing the sidelock in Thoth, 
and a reclining sphinx in Paophi. 

It will be seen at a glance that Kenkenes is Kenken 
with the Greek termination "es," and that it is an 
epoch-title assumed by Atoth to mark the epoch 4124 
B.C. 

We have already expressed the conviction that the 
Great Sphinx, opposite the ancient capital Heliopolis, 
was hewn out of the living rock by King Atoth-Ken- 
kenes to mark this epoch, and, that his tomb was 
probably in or near it. 

"Uennephis," with twenty-three years, who now 
occupies the place of King Ata, is the epoch-title of 
Kebahu, the last king of this dynasty. Before explain- 
ing his title, we will now give the dynasty complete : 

Era of Menes, 4244 B. C. 

Mena, as epoch-king "Athothis," 62 

4182 B. C. 
Teta, 57 

4125 B. C. 
Atoth, before epoch of Paopi 4124 B. C, . . . . i 

4124 B. C. 
Atoth, as epoch king " Kenkenes," 31 

4093 B. C. 
Ata, , o o 22 

4071 B. C. 



122 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

Brought forward, 4071 B. C. 

Usaphaidos, = , . . 20 

4051 B. C. 
Meibaes, 26 

4025 B. C. 
Semenpses, 18 

4007 B. C. 
KebahUy before epoch of Athyr, 4004 B. C, . . 3 

4004 B. C. 
KebahUy as epoch-king Uennephis, 23 

End of Dynasty, 3981 B. C. 

Athyr Is a form of Hathor, or Haet-har, "House 
of Horus." Hathor and Isis are but different names 
for the "cosmic house" out of which Horus emerges 
at sunrise and into which he retires at sunset. Hus-et, 
"House," and Hus-ir, "House of the Eye," are in- 
timately related, the one (Isis) being feminine, the 
other (Osiris) masculine. The epoch-king Kebahu, 
instead of assuming a title of Isis, adopted the title 
Uon-nofer, "Perfect Being," or "Perfect One," which 
was one of the distinctive titles of Osiris, the consort 
of Isis. The present form "Uen-nephis" is an evident 
corruption of Manetho's Uen-nepher. 

According to the Manethonlan Ivists, Uon-nofer, 
that is, Kebahu, as epoch-king, "built the pyramids 
of Kochome. The nome of Ka-kem, the "Black 
Bull," was situated in the southernmost point of the 
Delta, opposite the ruined pyramid of Abu-roesh, and, 
as the chief capital was then at Heliopolis in the same 
vicinity, I am convinced that Perring was right in 



History of Ancient Egypt 123 

regarding this ruin as the pyramid built by Uennephis 
to mark the epoch of Athyr 4004 B. C. 

The large pyramid of Abu-roash was built of hewn 
stones, some of which were of granite. This fact has 
been advanced as conclusive evidence that it could 
not have been built until after the reign of Toserthos, 
the second king of the Third Dynasty. The learned 
critics who have raised this objection, however, as- 
sume that the entire three hundred and two years 
of the Second Dynasty intervened between the F'irst 
and Third Dynasties, when, in fact, as we shall dem- 
onstrate, there were only eighty-seven or eighty- 
eight years between the two. The "Step-pyramid," 
which was built by Necherochis, the first king of the 
Third Dynasty, is in horizontal stages, or steps, and 
was originally encased with hewn stones. This fact 
of itself negatives the idea that Toserthos was the 
first to build with hewn stones. As we shall see in 
the next chapter, Necherochis was an epoch-king, 
and his reign, divided by the epoch 3884 B. C, ap- 
peared in Manetho's work in some such manner as 
this : 

Necherochis, before the epoch, lo years 

Necherochis, after the epoch, 28 " 

Entire reign, 38 " 

In the Lists of Africanus, this king has his epoch- 
reign only, to-wit, twenty-eight years, and, just as 
the remark appended to the epoch-reign of Menes 
now appears in the line originally given to Teta, the 
remark attached to the epoch-reign of Nuter-achi now 



124 ^ Self-Verifying Chronological 

appears opposite to Toserthos. We can safely assume 
that Manetho mentioned the celebrated ''Step-pyra- 
mid/' which is by far the largest of all the pyramids 
of Sakkara, and the further fact that Nuterachi was 
the first king to build a pyramid in horizontal stages, 
or steps. The remark now attached to the reign of 
Toserthos was certainly derived from this. I venture 
the prediction that, when Mena-Athothis established 
the kingdom over the united countries, about 4244 
B. C, the civilization of ancient Egypt had already 
attained its full perfection, and further, that this era 
marks the noonday, and not the dawn, of civilization. 
Such works as the damming of the western arm of 
the Nile, the foundation of Memphis, the hewing out 
and sculpturing of the Great Sphinx, the building of 
the pyramids of Ka-kem, near Heliopolis, in connec- 
tion with such buildings as the temple of Ptah at 
Memphis, and the palaces of Menes, or Mneuis, at 
Memphis and Heliopolis, are well authenticated his- 
torical facts, the evident meaning of which no fair- 
minded critic can possibly misunderstand. 

The Pyramid Texts show that Isis, Hathor and 
Osiris, Thoth, Ptah, Neith, Ra, Horus, Tum, Bast, 
Nut, Tef-nut, Min, and, in fact, the entire pantheon 
of so-called deities, were prehistoric ; in other words, 
the Ach-i-u, or Manes, who preceded Mena, had per- 
sonated and symbolized the various attributes of the 
^'Hidden God," whose name, if known, was never writ- 
ten or spoken, to whom no temples were built, and 
of whom no image was ever made, but who was wor- 
shiped in spirit and in silence alone. 



History of Ancient Egypt 125 



MANETHO'S SECOND AND THIRD 
DYNASTIES 

These dynasties will be treated together, because, 
after the end of the "three hundred and fifty years" 
of the first ''ten Thinite kings," they ruled contempo- 
raneously, side by side, for two hundred and fourteen 
or two hundred and fifteen years. 

As the First and Second Thinite Dynasties reigned 
five hundred and sixty-five years, that is, from 4244 
B. C. to 3679 B. C, and as the ''1,797 years" of the 
"Memphite kings" follow immediately after the "three 
hundred and fifty years" of the "ten Thinite kings" 
in Manetho's "General Scheme," it follows, of course, 
that the last two hundred and fifteen years of the 
Second Dynasty were contemporary with the first two 
hundred and fifteen years of the "Memphite kings." 

Bearing this in mind, the reader will be better 
able to appreciate a statement of Eusebius which has 
long puzzled Egyptologists. At the opening of his 
account of the Manethonian Dynasties this author 
says, "We must remember that there were, perhaps 
at one and the same time, several kings in Egypt," 
adding, "for we are told that the Thinites and Mem- 
phites reigned simultaneously, and likewise the Ethi- 
opians and the Saites, and others also. Moreover, 
some seemed to have reigned in one place, some in 
another, each dynasty being confined to its own prov- 
ince, so that several kings did not rule successively, 
but dififerent kings reigned at the same time in dif- 
ferent places." (Chronicon, Can. I, 20 : 3.) 



126 A Self-Verifying Chronological 

It is easy to distinguish between the facts taken 
from Manetho's work, either directly, or, what seems 
more probable, through Africanus, and the deduc- 
tions drawn therefrom by Eusebius himself. We ex- 
pect to show the following contemporary dynasties: 

1. Second Thinite and Third Memphite, . . .215 years 

2. Seventh and Eighth Memphite, Ninth Herac- 

leopolite, and Eleventh Theban, 148 " 

3. Thirteenth Theban and Fourteenth Xoite, . 242 " 

4. Sixteenth Theban and Seventeenth Hyksos, 260 " 

5. Twenty-fourth Saite and Twenty-fifth Etho- 

pian, 65 " 

It will be seen that Eusebius named the first 
and last of these contemporaneous periods, to wit : 
"The Thinites and Memphites" and the "Ethiopians 
and Saites," and merely referred to the others as 
"others also." When he says: "Some seem to have 
reigned in one place, some in another, each dynasty 
being confined to its own province," he referred to 
the period of one hundred and forty-eight years be- 
tween the Sixth and Twelfth Dynasties, and the first 
two hundred and fifty-one years of the Hyksos domi- 
nation over Egypt. The celebrated inscription of the 
Ethiopian king, Pa-anchi, describes just such a con- 
dition of affairs in Egypt, each nome, or province, 
having its own local ruler, some of whom assumed 
the title of king. The division of the kingdom oc- 
curred in the eleventh year of the reign of King 
Binothris, under whom, according to Manetho, the 
law was established that females might obtain the 
regal dignity. We must infer that his predecessor on 
the throne had no male issue, and that a disputed sue- 



History of Ancient Egypt 127 

cession was settled by allowing the crown to pass to 
the daughters of the deceased king. There are many 
instances, notably in the Eighteenth Dynasty, of the 
crown passing in the female line, in which cases the 
husband of the queen ruled in her right, and was, 
therefore, regarded as king. 

The fragments of the "Turin papyrus" contain- 
ing the names of the kings of this period, show that 
there were not only two, but even three, separate lines 
of kings at this time, all of whom have the customary 
title, "King of the South and King of the North." 

Before comparing the various lists and tables of 
these contemporary lines, we will say a few words 
about the first kings of Manetho's Third Dynasty, in- 
asmuch as all attempts to identify them with the actual 
names on the monuments must be pronounced dis- 
mal failures. 

I. NUTBR-ACHI, OR NKCHER-OCHIS 

Fragment forty-two of the "Turin papyrus" con- 
tains a name which reads Nttter-achi, "divine body." 
It was usual to abbreviate the names placed in the royal 
ovals, and this name is not only abbreviated, but the 
hieratic signs are placed in the most convenient po- 
sitions, so that the horizontal sign for r appears under 
the horizontal sign for achi, and the two vertical blades 
representing the i of achi are behind the vertical 
hatchet which here stands for the nu of nuter. When 
we once know that the name is Nttter-achi, there can 
be no further difficulty or doubt as to the correct 
reading. 

We now request the reader to turn to the unar- 



128 A Self-Verifying Chronological 

ranged names in Lepsius' ''Book of Kings." No. 765 
is our King Nuter-achi. The name here is so simple 
that it admits of no possible doubt. The i of achi is 
wanting; but, as was the case with all the most ancient 
kings, his Horus-title, his title as *'King of Upper and 
Lower Egypt," and his title as "Lord of Diadems," 
is simply Nuter-achi, In addition to this, we find 
"Golden Ra," which seems to be the "Golden Horus" 
of later times. 

The first king of the Memphlte Dynasty, who be- 
gan to reign 3894 B. C, judging from the form Bi- 
nothris (which is a corrupted Binuthris), was "Nuther- 
ochis." This name now appears as "Necherophis" 
and "Necherochis," forms which have been derived 
from Nutherochis, unless Manetho really rendered it 
"Necherochis." The epoch of Choiak, 3884 B. C, 
fell in the eleventh year of this king's reign, and, as 
his predecessor, Quehahu, built the Pyramids of Ko- 
chome to mark the epoch of Athyr, 4004 B. C, we 
are justified in assuming that Nuter-achi followed his 
example, and also constructed a pyramid to mark the 
epoch of Choiak, 3884 B. C. Who has not read about 
the most venerable of all the extant pyramids, the 
"Step-Pyramid" of Sakkara? Who is not aware that 
many eminent scholars, upon beholding the timeworn 
pile, were tempted to confound it with the Tower of 
Babel? All know that it is, unlike the Pyramids of 
Ghizeh, immediately opposite the site of ancient 
Memphis. 

But what will the reader say when he learns that 
around the door which leads into the sepulchral cham- 



History of Ancient Egypt 129 

ber of this pyramid, the name Nuter-achi appears re- 
peated over and over again. There can be no doubt 
that this pyramid, rising in successive stages to the 
apex, is the tomb of the first king of the Memphite 
Dynasties, and that it was erected, as a witness to 
future ages, to mark the great astronomical epoch 
3884 B. C. Is it a wonder that this spot was con- 
sidered to be peculiarly sacred by after-generations, 
and became a favorite place of sepulture? The sub- 
terranean galleries under this pyramid are so exten- 
sive, and constitute such a maze, that it would be 
dangerous for any tourist to venture into, them with- 
out a thoroughly competent and experienced guide. 

Under Nuter-achi the Libyans revolted from 
Egypt, but made their submission on account of a 
sudden increase in the moon's size, which terrified 
them. No doubt this sudden change in the moon's ap- 
pearance was owing to an eclipse, and I hope some 
astronomer will take the trouble to ascertain, and in- 
form us, just when this eclipse took place between 
the years 3894 B. C. and 3856 B. C. Nuter-achi 
worked the mines in the Sinaitic peninsula, as shown 
by his inscription in that region. Thus the first king 
of the Third Memphite Dynasty was powerful enough 
to hold the Libyans and the peninsula of Sinai in sub- 
jection. 

2. SA-ZOSERT, SESORTHOS, TOSORTHROS 

The successor of Nuter-achi, on fragment forty- 
two of the "Turin papyrus," was Sa-zosert. Of course, 
the *V* of this name represents 'Hs" and was long 
afterwards rendered sometimes 'H" sometimes "^.'* 



I30 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

Africanus has Toserthros, while Eusebius has Sesor- 
thos. Manetho probably had "Setoserthos," for he 
rendered Zoser-teta ''Tosertasis." I know of no in- 
stance in the "Turin papyrus" in which the sign for 
''Zoser*' is written phonetically, as in the "Pyramid 
Texts," but the latter show unmistakably that the sign 
was pronounced Zoser. Hence the ^'a of Sa-zoserty 
in the papyrus, is an integral part of the name, as still 
shown by Sesorthos. The extra r of Soserthros in- 
dicates that there was an r near the end of the name. 
All these indications point to Setoserthos. It may 
be that Tosertasis, following so close after this name, 
had something to do with the loss of the initial Se, 
So much for the name itself. 

The reigns of Binothris and Necherochis closed 
about the same time, which goes to show that they 
were intimately connected. Ufnas, of the Thinite line, 
and Sazosert, of the Memphite line, ascended the 
throne about the same time, and reigned side by side 
for seventeen years. This fact sheds some light on 
the name of the eighth king in the list of Eratosthenes. 
It now reads "Ogdoos Gosormies," a strange cor- 
ruption of the original "Otnos Tosorthos." This 
reign, in Eratosthenes, is thirty years. Manetho gives 
Soserthos twenty-nine years. Both may be equally 
correct. Necherochis reigned twenty-eight years after 
the epoch 3884 B. C. As this is a round number, we 
can not tell how the extra months and days were ap- 
portioned. Binothris reigned, in years, twenty be- 
fore, and twenty-seven after, the epoch 3884 B. C. 
Now 28+29—27+30. 



Hi ST OR Y OF Ancient Eg ypt i 3 1 

What we wish to demonstrate is that the first four 
kings of Manetho's Third Dynasty belong to the line 
set forth on fragment forty-two of the papyrus, and 
that the fifth and sixth kings, Soyphis and Tosertasis, 
were taken from a different line, named on fragment 
eighteen of the papyrus, where they are preceded by 
Nofer-ka-sokariy Huzefa, Zaza-iy and Neh-ka. The 
Table of Abydus, after the eight kings of the First 
Dynasty, honors Buzau^ Ka-kau, Ba-n-nuter, Utnas, 
and Senda, who are the first five kings of Manetho's 
Second Dynasty. After Senda, however, it leaves the 
Thinite line, and takes up Zaza-i, Nebka, Zoser-sa-uf 
(Soyphis), and Zoser-teta (Tosertasis). There is noth- 
ing extraordinary about this after we know that these 
three separate lines, each of which was regarded as 
equally legitimate, reigned contemporaneously. As 
they were all related, and no doubt intermarried, sub- 
sequent kings of Egypt could, with equal propriety, 
select their ancestors out of either line. It seems that 
Senoferu, the first king of the Fourth Dynasty, united 
in his person the claims of all three lines. Thus the 
three lines which proceeded from Kaiechos, the last 
of Manetho's "ten Thinite kings," were again united 
after two hundred and fifteen years, in the person of 
Senoferu, who became a Memphite king. In the tomb 
of Sheri we find the names of Senda and Person, either 
as joint-rulers or successive kings. As Person was 
not a Thinite or Memphite king, he must have be- 
longed to the third line. 

Tosertasis was a celebrated epoch-king, Vi/'hose 
reign commenced 3764 B. C. His predecessor, Soy- 



132 History of Ancient Egypt 

phis, was distinguished in the papyrus by having his 
name displayed in red ink, and placed at the head of 
a new section. This was because his reign extended 
down to the beginning of the epoch of Tybi, which 
was also the beginning of a new season and Phoenix 
period. 

The sixth king in the list of Eratosthenes, ''Mom- 
cheiri Memphites," with a reign of seventy-nine years, 
is one of the best examples of how careless copyists 
have mutilated the original names. Menes is termed 
*'Thinites;" hence "Memphites" indicates that a part 
of this long reign, at least, belongs to a Memphite 
king. Eratosthenes joined Utnas and Toserthos; 
hence he must have had Necherochis also, because 
"Memphites" could have applied to no other Mem- 
phite king. It follows that Eratosthenes amalgamated 
the reigns of Kaiechos, of the Thinite line, and Ne- 
cherochis, of the Memphite Hne, estimating the two 
at seventy-nine years. This procedure on the part of 
Eratosthenes adds great weight to the theory that 
Kaiechos died without male issue, and that, after ten 
years, the disputed succession was settled by allowing 
the crown to descend to his three daughters, each of 
whom received a certain part of the kingdom. Bino- 
thris and Necherochis each reigned in the right of 
one of these daughters. It is to be hoped that some 
fortunate discovery may yet shed additional light on 
this interesting period of Egyptian history. In the 
following table the kings of these lines are placed in 
parallel columns : 



vO 


COM OnC/1 




^ 00 


M ChCn 


-f^w 


(0 w 




(T) 


Soyphis 
Tosertas 
Aches 
Sethosis 





S2. 


Sethenes 

Chaires 

Nepherc 


CjW 






03 


ft 




03 


^ w 


!x 


03* 


03 


H 


01 


m 


"r^ 




03 






r^ 




Zoser-sa-( 
(Zoser)tet 

Sezos 








r+ P 

H 


WW 
p c 

si 


03 O 


3 


P3 J3 








•-i 




"Il 


s?w 


'^ ^^ 


N 


w^ 


^ ^ 


^^ 


^'Z 






fT o o 


i. 


1? 


7 ^ 


r* P 
03 pj 


p 2 


PI Cd 


S Si 




p ^ 


K 


C 


a* 


W t^ 


e 




p 

03 


A 




s 


^ O 








^ 


p 






>° 








P 
















U- 


























Neb-k 
Zoser- 
Zoser- 

Huni 
Senof< 




1? 


Ba-n-ii 
Utnas 

Senda 
Nuter- 

F 


^1^ 

C 7 5^ 


H 


^ ^ 






go. i 


"-1 


•=1. 


(3 








F 






Ki 










H 
















t— 












^ 






^g 






^n 










r? 


1 


> 












2."^ 


>< 












03 7 














• : 


(D p ^ 

7 o t^ 












'*5t 




?* 


















vO 


OOM ONCn 






-ii.(jj 


to M 






W 


OTJ^Kjm 






g^ 


^^ 




M 


n) 


rt o o o 






fD^ 


P n) 






►3 

ft 


?-2^ 

cii' 






03 VI 


'4. 




a 










H 














rt 


03 














03 
















■^ 










G > 






g 


og 








p^ » 






P 


G" o 








C3 O 






n 


§g 




« 




r 1 

03 






03 


o o 

03 CT* 








5 








o 2. 




W 




S 








gj 








s 








SU 














































rt 
















03 







133 



134 ^ Self- Verifying Chronological 

The Table of Abydus, which has come down to 
us in almost perfect preservation, and certainly re- 
ceived the sanction and approval of Seti I, one of the 
greatest kings that ever ruled over Egypt, must be 
accepted as the best evidence attainable at that time, 
about 1584 B. C. The inscription over the seventy- 
six names, coupled with the representation of Seti and 
his infant son, Ramesses, at the left side of the table, 
shows that the king and his son were doing homage 
to their distinguished "ancestors" (uahu-chet), who 
had been Suten Buti, that is, "King of the South and 
King of the North." When we consider that no king 
of the Eleventh, Thirteenth, Fourteenth, Sixteenth, 
or Seventeenth Dynasties was admitted to this list, 

w^e are driven to the conclusion that it contains such 

/I 

only as ruled over the original "Land of Anu,'^ or 
Ta-dn-nut, and no others. The fact that nine kings 
appear in the table between Kaiechos and Senoferu 
(the exact number of Manetho's Third Dynasty) 
shows that this period differed radically from the 
others just referred to. The conditions were such 
that Binothris could be enrolled as king of Upper 
and Lower Egypt, notwithstanding the more power- 
ful reign of Necherochis at Memphis. Are we not 
compelled to assume that these kings ruled jointly, 
and were of equal dignity? The successor of Sa- 
zosert, or Sesorthos, in Manetho's Third Dynasty, 
is Tyres. The corresponding name on fragment 
forty-seven of the papyrus is destroyed. Eratosthenes 
calls this king Mares, translated "Heliodorus," and 
gives him a reign of twenty-six years. The Egyptian 



Hi ST OR V OF Ancient Eg ypt 135 

for Heliodorus is Mer-ra, pronounced in Manetho's 
time Mei-re. Tyres, therefore, should be Myres, and 
the seven years assigned to him should be twenty- 
seven. The fragments of the papyrus belonging to 
this period show many names beginning with mer; 
for example, Mer-hapen, Mer-sokari, etc., so that no 
objection can be urged to the form Mer-ra. Manetho 
renders Mersokari "Mesochris," which makes the 
form ''Meires," or ''Myres,"" very probable. 

The following changes have been made in the 
Africanian list of the Third Dynasty : 

1. Necherochis, whose reign was, thirty-eight 
years, now has the twenty-eight years of his epoch- 
reign, which are equivalent to the twenty-seven years 
of the epoch-reign of Binothris. 

2. Tyres, Myres, or Mares, now has seven years 
only, although his reign was twenty-seven years. 
Eratosthenes gave Sesorthos thirty and Mares 
twenty-six years. Manetho gave them respectively 
twenty-nine and twenty-seven years. 

3. Soyphis now has the six years of Tosertasis, 
since increased to sixteen, to balance the ten years 
taken from Necherochis. 

4. Tosertasis has the nineteen years of Soyphis. 

5. Aches, who reigned twenty-two years, now has 
forty-two years, to balance the twenty years deducted 
from the reign of Mares. 

The epitomists knew that the total of this dynasty 
was two hundred and fourteen years, and, after the 
reigns of Necherochis and Tyres had been reduced 
to twenty-eight and seven years respectively, under- 



136 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

took to correct the errors and make the reigns foot 
up two hundred and fourteen years, by adding ten 
years to the reign of Soyphis and twenty years to the 
reign of Aches. 

Soyphis (Sa-uf-u) appears in the list of Eratos- 
thenes as Anoyphis, with a reign of twenty years. 
"Anoyphis" comes from a careless copyist, who mis- 
took the final syllable of "ebasilevtsen'^ for the first 
syllable of ''Soyphis," which followed immediately 
after it. In the list of Eratosthenes all the kings are 
expressly termed ''Theban," that is to say, kings who 
ruled over the Thebais. Now, since we have shown 
that the kings of the Third Dynasty ruled contempo- 
raneously with the Thinite kings, it is signiicant that 
the Memphite and not the Thinite kings were regarded 
as Thehan kings, because it shows that the Thinite 
kings reigned in the Delta, and not between Memphis 
and Thebes. 

The lists of Manetho and Eratosthenes compare 
as follows: 

Manetho. Eratosthenes. 

Kaiechos, 39^ 

Binothris, 10 r Momcheiri Memphites, 79 

Necherochis, 38 J Stoichos, 6 

Toserthos, 29 Otnoos Tosermies, . . 30 

Tyres, 27 Mares, 26 

Soyphis, , . 19 Soyphis, 20 

Aches, 22 Chnubos Gneuros, . . 22 

As nothing but fragments of the list of Eratos- 
thenes have come down to us, the perfect agreement 
of the foregoing series is certainly remarkable. 

The Table of Abydus has Sezos and Nofer-kara 



History of Ancient Egypt 137 

between Zoserteta and Senoferu, and Neh-ka-f before 
Soyphis, while the Table of Sakkara has Neb-ka-ra 
after Tosertasis. 

The form Neh-ka-f, literally "the Lord, his Ka," 
like User-ka-f, which Manetho converted into User- 
ka-ra and rendered "Usercheres," is equivalent to 
Neb-ka-ra, ra being understood. It Is even possible 
that ra was inserted in all these names at a later period. 
I believe that Neb-ka, Neb-ka-f, and Neb-ka-ra of the 
papyrus and tables stand for one and the same king. 
If this be true, it is possible that an error was made 
as far back as Seti's time in the transition from the 
Thinite to the Memphite line, immediately after King 
Senda, for, as we have already shown, Senda belonged 
to one line, and Zazai, Nebka, Zoser-sauf, and Zoser- 
teta to another. What is most essential, the chronol- 
ogy of the period has not been afifected, but is as cer- 
tain as could be wished. The Second and Third Dy- 
nasties both end, in the Sothiac series, at 3679 B. C, 
as the following table will show : 

Thinites. Memphites. 

Bpocli of Athyr, . 4004 B. C. 
Uen-nepliis, ... 23 

3981 B. C. 
Boetlaos, 38 

3943 B. C. 
Kaiechos, .... 39 Third Dynasty, , . 3894 B. C. 

3904 B. C. 
Binothris, before Necherochis, be- 

epoch, .... 20 fore epocb, . . 10 

B. C. 3884 B. C. 



138 



A Self- Verifying Chronological 



Brought forward, 3884 B. C. 
Binothris, after 

epoch, .... 27 

3857 B. C. 
Utnas, 17 



Necherochis, after 
epoch, . . . . 

Sesorthos, . . . . 



Sethenes, . 



3840 B. C. 
41 



Myres, 



3799 B. C. 
Chaires, 17 



Nephercheres, be- 
fore epoch, . . 

Nephercheres, af- 
ter epoch, . . . 

Sesochris, . . . . 

Cheneres, . . . . 



3782 

19 
3763 B. C. 



3757 B. C. 
48 

3709 B. C. 
30 

3679 B. C. 



Mesochris, 

Soyphis, 
epoch, 

Tosertasis, 
epoch. 

Aches, . . 



before 



3884 B. C. 

28 

3856 B. C. 
29 

3827 B. C. 
27 

3800 B. C. 
17 

3783 B. C. 

19 
3764 B. C. 



after 



Sethosis, 



Kerpheres, 



3758 B. C. 
22 

3736 B. C. 
30 

3706 B. C. 
26 



3680 B. C. 

We now see what an irreparable loss science has 
sustained by reason of the accident to the ''Turin 
papyrus," which was a complete list of the kings of 
Egypt from the first king, Menes, down to the Eigh- 
teenth Dynasty, giving their reigns in years, months, 
and days. It was in perfect preservation when dis- 
covered, but the unfortunate owner seems to have 
had no appreciation of its value or importance. The 
fragments which have been recovered are often ag- 
gravatingly small, and the names are sometimes de- 



History of Ancient Egypt 139 

stroyed and lost where they are most needed. How 
we should like to know who preceded Huni, and who 
followed Nuter-kay in the papyrus ; to which line Sezos 
belonged, etc. The papyrus no doubt explained all 
this satisfactorily. We are, therefore, yet in the dark 
as to how the first four kings of the Third Dynasty, 
chosen from one line, and the remaining kings, taken 
from another and separate line, could all have ranked 
as Memphite kings. 

Before leaving these dynasties, we can not refrain 
from noticing certain opinions expressed by Maspero 
in his latest work, "The Dawn of Civilization," which 
are necessarily entitled to much weight on account 
of his eminence as an Egyptologist. He says, on page 
236, in effect, that the immediate successors of Mena 
have but a semblance of reality such as he had : 

*'The lists give the order of succession, it is true, 
with the years of their reigns almost to a day, some- 
times the length of their lives, but we may well ask 
whence the chroniclers procured so much precise in- 
formation. They w^ere in the same position as our- 
selves with regard to these ancient kings; they knew 
them by a tradition of a later age, by a fragment of 
papyrus fortuitously preserved in a temple, by acci- 
dentally coming across some monument bearing their 
names, and were reduced, as we are, to put together- 
the few facts which they possessed, or to supply such as 
were wanting, by conjectures, often in a very improb- 
able manner. It is quite possible that they were able to 
gather from the memory of the past the names of those 
individuals of which they made up the first two Thinite 
Dynasties. The forms of these names are curt and 
rugged, and indicative of a rude and savage state. 



I40 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

harmonizing with the semi-barbaric period to which 
they are relegated : Ati, the Wrestler ; Teti, the Run- 
ner; Quenqoni, the Crusher, are suitable rulers for 
a people, the first duty of whose chief was to lead his 
followers into battle, and to strike harder than any 
other man in the thickest of the fight. . . . 

"Where Manetho inscribes Kenkenes and Uen- 
nephis, the tables of the time of Seti I give us Ati and 
Ata ; Manetho reckons nine kings to the Second Dy- 
nasty, while they register only five. . . . We must, 
therefore, take the record of all this opening period 
of history for what it is, namely, a system invented 
at a much later date, by means of various artifices and 
combinations, to be partially accepted in default of a 
better, but without according to it that excessive con- 
fidence which it has hitherto received. The two Thin- 
ite Dynasties, in direct descent from the fabulous 
Menes, furnish, like this hero himself, only a tissue of 
romantic tales and miraculous legends in the place of 
history." 

We might quote pages, and even chapters, in the 
same strain, but the above will serve as an example. 
We read and wonder how one of the most distin- 
guished interpreters of the hieroglyphic inscriptions 
of the ancient Egyptians could have developed into 
such an agnostic as to the history, literature, and civil- 
ization of the people to whom he has devoted the best 
energies of his life. It is true that the ''Turin papyrus" 
is now reduced to a number of mutilated and uncon- 
nected fragments, but it does not follow therefrom 
that the ancient Egyptians of the times of Aahmes and 
Seti I "were in the same position as ourselves with 
regard to these ancient kings," or that they "knew 



History of Ancient Egypt 141 

them by a fragment of papyrus fortuitously preserved 
in a temple." The fact that the "Turin papyrus," 
which dates, according to Maspero, from the reign of 
Seti I, or, as I am convinced, from the beginning of 
the Eighteenth Dynasty, where it closes, survived the 
countless vicissitudes of time and the destructive 
hand of man, and reached us in a perfect state of 
preservation, alone negatives the idea that the ancient 
Egyptians themselves depended on fragments of papy- 
rus, or ''accidental monuments bearing the names of 
kings." In Egypt, where the rocks to-day con- 
tain inscriptions which can be estimated by the square 
mile, there was never a time when the temples, tombs, 
and even private houses, were not full of writings of 
all kinds bearing on the early history of Egypt. We 
are told that the forms of these names are "curt and 
rugged, and indicative of a rude and savage state," and 
in order to prove the assertion, the author invents 
the name "Quenqoni, the Crusher." Unfortunately 
for himself, he gives us, on the opposite page, a pic- 
ture of the stela in the form of a door from the tomb 
of Sheri. In the first place, there never was such a 
name as "Quenqoni, the Crusher." In the second 
place, no king of these dynasties bore the name 
^'Quenqoni.'* In the third place, King Atoth, not 
"Ati, the Wrestler," assumed the epoch-title Ken-ken, 
"Very Brave," which was not at all rude or savage, 
but so refined and emblematic that I fear this enlight- 
ened generation itself will have much difficulty in 
grasping and fully understanding it. 

These names, including Uennephis, are said to har- 



142 A Self-Verifying Chronological 

monize with the semi-barbaric period. When we real- 
ize that Uon-nofeTy "the Perfect Being," ''the Perfect 
One," was one of the titles of Osiris, and that Osiris 
was the symbol and personation of everything that 
was good and perfect, and that no other nation ever 
had such a symbol, we are compelled to admit that, 
instead of being "rude and barbaric," the civilization 
of this period has never seen its equal, except in true 
ideal Christianity. Why does the learned author omit 
the ndiXnt Mena from those characterized as "curt and 
rugged?" This name, which has become a household 
word in every civilized nation on earth, contains, in 
itself y a refutation of the charge, which is crushing 
and decisive. If the defamers of Egyptian civilization 
would take the time to translate and analyze Mena's 
epoch-title, Athothis-Hermogenes, ''Offspring of 
Thoth/' that is, offspring of the symbol of learning and 
wisdom, and bear in mind that this same Thoth is 
represented in the mines of Sinai as conferring upon 
Chufu II the power to overcome the barbarous 
Mentiu, they would hide their heads in shame. What 
is there rude or savage, or even semi-barbaric, on the 
stele from Sheri's tomb of King Senda's time? Sheri 
himself is represented with the head, features, and 
equally-developed brain of a civilized man. It is true 
his costume is like that worn by Adam in the Garden 
of Eden, but this is simply one of many facts going 
to prove that Egypt was the Garden of Eden ; for such 
a costume, worn alike by king, noble, and priest in 
Egypt, was, from the beginning of history, a physical 
impossibility in Babylonia or Assyria. Sheri has not 



History of Ancient Egypt 143 

fastened to his waist the sword or dagger of semi- 
civilized man, but he holds in his hand the peaceful 
"staff of office," which Maspero himself tells us was 
"a symbol of command which only the nobles and the 
ofHcials associated with the nobility could carry with- 
out transgressing custom." 

The inscriptions on this "stela," which include the 
ovals of Senda and Person, show that the language, 
arts, and sciences of the Egyptians were already fully 
developed at this early date. The king himself bears 
the title Hon-nuter, "Servant of God," a title more 
eloquent and convincing than volumes of so-called 
scientific and priestly lore, grander and more sublime 
than any ever since borne by king or potentate, and 
yet so refined and highly civilized that it must have 
been an heirloom from primitive perfect man, handed 
down from the Golden Age. This same agnosticism, 
falsely called science, assumed that Osiris was un- 
known in the Old Empire, and, basing itself upon this 
assumption, claimed that the cofifin of Menkaura was 
the work of a later age, because the inscription on its 
lid contained the name of Osiris. As Thoth is pic- 
tured on an early monument of the Eourth Dynasty, 
true science would have assumed that the people who 
had symbolized Wisdom, and (as shown by other mon- 
uments) the Truth, the Way, and the Life, had also 
symbolized, or personated, Good and Evil. In fact, 
the supposed "gods," "triads," "great enneads," and 
"little enneads," of Maspero, were not gods at all, 
but simply symboHzations and allegorical persona- 
tions of divine attributes. Since the inscriptions in 



144 A Self-Verifying Chronological 

the pyramids of Unas, Tela, Meri-ra, etc., have been 
discovered and published, we know that Osiris and 
Isis, Hathor, Seth, and Nephthis, Neith, Anubis, Seb 
and Nut, Num, Horus, Ra, Turn, Thoth, Amen, Muth, 
and all the other so-called gods or deities, were as 
well known in the Old Empire as they were at any 
later period. 

In the same way, it is claimed, with as little reason, 
that the "Stela of Cheops' Daughter" was the work 
of a later age. 

ZOSER-SA-UF AND ZOSKR-TETA 

Maspero translates, and discusses in the same vein, 
an inscription on a rock in the Island of Sehel, dis- 
covered by Wilbour in 1890. This inscription is at- 
tributed to Zoser-sa-uf, called Zosiri by Maspero, and 
Tosertasis by Pleyte, and sets forth that, in the eigh- 
teenth year of his reign, he sent to the governor of 
Elephantine a message couched in these terms: "I 
am overcome with sorrow for the throne, and for 
those who reside in the palace, and my heart is afflicted 
and suffers greatly because the Nile has not risen in 
my time for the space of eight years. Corn is scarce, 
there is a lack of herbage, and nothing is left to eat ; 
when one calls on his neighbors for help, they take 
pains not to go. The child weeps, the young man is 
uneasy, the hearts of the old men are in despair, their 
limbs are bent, they crouch on the earth, they fold 
their hands ; the courtiers have no further resources ; 
the shops formerly furnished with rich wares are now 
empty, all that was in them has disappeared. My 



History of Ancient Egypt 145 

spirit also, mindful of the beginning of things, seeks to 
call upon the Saviour who was here where I am, during 
the centuries of the gods, upon Thoth, the great wise 
one ; upon Imhotep, son of Ptah, of Memphis. Where 
is the place in which the Nile was born? Who is the 
god or goddess concealed there? What is his Hke- 
ness? (Dawn of Civilization, pages 240 and 241.) The 
governor of Elephantine repaired to King Soyphis, 
described the situation of the island, the rocks of the 
cataract, the phenomena of the inundation, and the 
gods who presided over it, and alone could relieve 
Egypt from her disastrous plight. After this Soyphis, 
or Tosertasis, went to Elephantine and offered the 
prescribed sacrifices in the temple of Num. 

Maspero says this inscription shows us with what 
ease the scribes could forge official documents. "It 
teaches us at the same time how that fabulous chron- 
icle was elaborated, whose remains have been pre- 
served for us by classical writers. Every prodigy, 
every fact related by Manetho, was taken from some 
document analagous to the supposed inscription of 
Zosiri." 

Again we pause in blank amazement. No matter 
when the inscription itself was engraved in the rock, 
the subject matter, name of the king, and style of the 
text mark it as genuine. 

After Zoser-sa-uf had reigned nineteen years (the 
papyrus seemingly gives him nineteen years, two 
months, and four days) as Soyphis, "the Saviour," 
the Sothiac month of Choiak came to an end and the 
epoch of Tybi, 3764 B. C, commenced. Unless he 
10 



146 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

died about this exact time, Zoser-teta, "Tosertasis," is 
but another title for this king, "re-born" and re- 
crowned" on the first day of the new month and new 
season, 3764 B. C. For this reason, his name was 
displayed in the papyrus, and for this reason, perhaps, 
he is termed Teta only in the Table of Abydus. 

The inscription, as translated by Maspero himself, 
relates that in the eighteenth year of Zoser-sauf the 
Nile had not risen for eight years, and that the mes- 
sage to the governor of Elephantine was sent in this 
year. It is evident that the text is allegorical, and re- 
fers to the coming epoch, which was determined by 
the heliacal rising of Sothis on the first day of Tybi. 
The allusions to the "beginning of things," and the 
"Saviour" (Sa-uf-u), who was there where he was, 
"during the centuries of the gods," is a play upon 
his own name, Soyphis. There may be a deep signifi- 
cance in this "Saviour," who was there at the "begin- 
ning of things." Joseph's title, "Saph-nath-pa-aneah," 
contains the same element, Sa-uf, or "Saviour," and 
is, in pure Egyptian, Sauf-na-ta-pa-anchu, "Saviour of 
the world," (lit. "Saviour of the Eand of the Living"). 
The preposition n or en, "of," Is the only element of 
the title that requires any explanation. In the New 
Empire this n, in certain positions, became na, as in 
"Menophthah," which is Mer-na-ptah, "Beloved by 
Ptah." In the pyramid of Pepa I (Pyramid Texts, 
Pepa I, line 90), e. g., we find "Seper na Pepa er pet," 
instead of ''Se-per en Pepa er pet" In Lower Egypt 
t was often pronounced like th, which, with na, would 
give us '^Saf-na-tha-pa-anchu" In the spoken dialect, 



History of Ancient Egypt 147 

tha degenerated into the (comp. Ta-anu and The-dnu) 
so that ''Saf-na-the-pa-anech" gave birth to Saf-nath- 
pa-aneah. The development of nath from nathe, and 
nathe from natha, is demonstrated by such analagous 
forms as Phathmetic, Phathmeht, etc. We read of 
the Phathmetic arm of the Nile. Now Phathmeht 
comes naturally enough from Pa-ta-meht, or Pa-ta- 
an-het, "The Land of the North" (Ht. "The Land at 
the Head"), and the nath of Safnath dififers in no re- 
spect from the Phath of Phathmeht. In both in- 
stances, ta or tha has been reduced to th. But we are 
now concerned with Sa-uf, which afterwards became 
Saf. I see in the name Joseph, the ancient Egyp- 
tian prototype lo-sa-uf. The lo-nim-u, or lonians, are 
mentioned in the pyramid of Teta as dwelling beyond 
the second "great turn" {shin-Mr) of the Mediterranean 
Sea ("Uas-ur") in the "great circuit" of the Sea, that 
is, in the same locality where we find them at the 
opening of Grecian history. Maspero renders the 
name ''Hau-nibu/' which means "all the lonians," or 
the lonians collectively. The name lo-petu, or la-petu, 
that is, "the foreign /a," who were settled in the north- 
western angle of the Delta around Rakotis (Per- 
kodesu), is the original of the well-known name, 
Japheth. It is interesting to note that the eight years 
of a deficient Nile under Soyphis correspond very 
closely to the seven years of a low Nile under the 
Pharaoh who conferred on lo-sa-uf the title of "Sa- 
uf-na-ta-pa-anch." The contemporary epoch-king of 
Soyphis was Nephercheres of the Second Dynasty. 
The two reigns began at the same time, and the epoch, 



148 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

2,7^4- B. C, fell in the twentieth year of Nephercheres. 
The remark (ascribed to Manetho) attached to the 
reign of this king, in the lists, that under Nephercheres 
the Nile flowed with honey for eleven days, is alle- 
gorical, or symbolical, and must not be taken liter- 
ally. When Maspero says: "Every prodigy, every 
fact related by Manetho, was taken from some docu- 
ment analogous to the suposed inscription of Zosiri," 
he, no doubt, refers to the above and to such prodigies 
as Menes being devoured by a hippopotamus, Ach- 
thoes being devoured by a crocodile, Osorthon being 
called the Egyptian Hercules, Rocchoris being burnt 
alive by Sabakon, etc., all of which are undoubtedly 
symbolical. These supposed prodigies have become 
such by being misunderstood and perverted. The 
hippopotamus of Menes, and the crocodile of Ach- 
thoes, were not at all dangerous or destructive in 
the literal sense, for the one merely devoured a Sothiac 
year, the other a Sothiac month; neither was the 
rohk-ur, or "great heat," of Em-Mr, 724 B. C, at all 
injurious to Sethon, the supposed Bocchoris; for he 
reigned, as subject-king under the Ethiopians, for 
thirty-eight years after this epoch. On the contrar}^ 
such point-blank assertions are very unjust to Man- 
etho and the native monuments translated by him. It 
should always be borne in mind that the lists which 
have come down to us, and the isolated and fragment- 
ary notes to be found in them, were not his zvork; 
for we know, from the statement of Josephus, that it 
was a history in three books, and, as the first book 
ended in the seventeenth year of Amenemes I, it cer- 



History of Ancient Egypt 149 

tainly contained a great mass of valuable information 
about the kings of the Old Empire, other than the 
meager notes preserved in the lists. The men who 
extracted the Hsts (to judge from these notes) were 
looking for ''prodigies," and, thanks to this weak- 
ness on their part, handed down and preserved some 
scientific facts of great value. The most impartial 
witness in a case of this kind is one who is utterly 
oblivious to the meaning of the notices copied. If 
the meaning of such titles as Athothis, Kenkenes, 
Uennepher, Psamuthis, Amyrtaios, Rokchoris, etc., 
and such symbols as the crocodile, hippopotamus, 
lamb, etc., had been understood by the early epito- 
mists, they would never have reached us. 

EPOCH-KINGS OF THE THIRD DYNASTY 

There were but two Sothiac epochs during the 
three hundred and two years of the Second Dynasty, 
the last two hundred and fourteen of which were con- 
temporary with the Third Dynasty, to wit : the epoch 
of Choiahk, 3884 B. C, and the epoch of Tybi, 3764 
B. C. The first of Choiahk marked the "first appear- 
ance" {pir-top) of Horus above the equator, or In the 
northern hemisphere. At this time, according to the 
old notion, his body, achet, had attained its full growth 
and vigor, although his intellect was not supposed to 
attain its full development and perfection until the 
first of Phamenoth. Nether-ochis, or Nuter-achi, seems 
to be the epoch-title of the first Memphite King, for 
it certainly relates to this "body" of Horus. 

As we have seen, the lists now give Netherochis 



I50 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

the twenty-eight years of his epoch-reign only, al- 
though he reigned from 3894 to 3856 B. C, or thirty- 
eight years altogether. His contemporary of the 
The-anute line, at Heliopolis, was Ba-n-nuter, that is, 
''Soul of God," or "Divine Soul," and it is startling 
to find in ancient Egypt at this time a recognition 
of one of the fundamental doctrines of Christianity 
as taught and explained by Paul; that is, the doctrine 
that each human being, while living on this globe, 
has, in addition to his material body, a spiritual body 
and a soul, corresponding to the achet, ka, and ba of 
the ancient Egyptians. But I must reserve this im- 
portant subject for some future work. Coming back 
to the great Step-pyramid of Sakkara, which was 
erected by this king to mark the epoch, 3884 B. C. — 
as yet it had not become the fashion for every king 
to build a pyramid for his last resting-place — the titles 
of Nuter-achi appear above and on either side of the 
doorway of the sepulchral chamber. In the center of 
the facing of the doorway is the symbol 2ed, some- 
times written ded, tat, etc., and on either side of it 
the titles, "King of the South and King of the North, 
Eord of Diadems, Nuter-achi.^' 

On the facing on each side of the doorway, re- 
peated eight times, is the Horus-title, ^^Har-Nnter- 
achi.'* It is significant that all the titles alike are 
simply Nuter-achi, for this in itself is a positive proof 
that Nuter-achi was far more ancient than Senoferii, 
whose Horus-title was Neh-maat. This king held and 
worked the mines in the peninsula of Sinai. The 
Libyans, who had been reduced to submission by 



History of Ancient Egypt 151 

Menes, took advantage of the division of the king- 
dom to raise the standard of revolt, but v^ere fright- 
ened into submission by an eclipse of the sun or moon. 
As this remark is attached to the reign of Necherochis, 
it might be inferred that he also held the district lying 
on the v^est bank of the Canopic arm of the Nile; if 
so, Binothris v^as restricted to the Delta proper. 

As we have seen, the division of the kingdom took 
place in the year 3894 B. C, after Binothris had 
reigned ten years, and I am now convinced (1898) 
that it was an amicable division made to settle a dis- 
puted succession, owing to the fact that Kaiechos 
died without leaving male issue. As the rights of 
each line derived from the daughters of Kaiechos 
were equal, it was, in fact, a dual kingdom, both kings 
assuming the throne-title, "King of the South and 
King of the North." Thus the reigns of Binothris 
and Netherochis ran parallel for thirty-eight years, 
and seem to end at the same time. It follows that 
Binothris was also an epoch-king for twenty-seven or 
twenty-eight years (as we have already explained, 
Africanus apportioned the extra months and days, 
which often gives rise to an apparent discrepancy of 
one year). Does the fact that the Apis-bull (symbol 
of the body) was venerated in Memphis, while the 
Mendesian-ram {Ba-neh-ded, identified with ha, 
"soul") was venerated in the Delta, account for the 
variation between Achi-n-nuter and Ba-n-nuferf 

We have shown that Eratosthenes recognized the 
dual nature of the kingdom at this time by joining 
the reigns of Utnas and Toserthos, both of which 



152 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

appear in the hyphenated form, "Otnoos-Toserthos," 
now "Ogdoos-Gosormies." 

In like manner the fragment "Momcheiri Mem- 
phites" is all that now remains of Binothris-Nether- 
ochis. 

The epoch of Tybi, 3764 B. C, was a most im- 
portant one, for it ushered in a new season, the 
PWu-et Season. Nephercheres of the Second Dynasty, 
and Zoser-sauf and Zoser-teta of the Third Dynasty, 
were the epoch-kings. Dividing the reign of Nepher- 
cheres at 3764 B. C, we find that nineteen years of it 
were before and six of it after that epoch. It is re- 
markable that the nineteen years of Soyphis and six 
years of Tosertasis exactly correspond to these. We 
are almost tempted to believe that Zoser-sauf and 
Zoser-teta of the Turin papyrus and Table of Abydus 
are two titles for one and the same king, whose reign 
of twenty-five years paralleled that of Nephercheres. 

In the tomb of Sheri the names of Senda and Per- 
sonu appear. Per-somi, as shown by the names of the 
thirty days of the lunar month, means "second ap- 
pearance," and if the appearance of Horus on the 
first of Tybi was called his "second appearance," Per- 
sonu might be an epoch-title of Nephercheres. 

The unfortunate breaks in the Turin papyrus make 
it impossible for me to determine whether the epoch- 
reigns were there entered as separate reigns. The 
name after Mena, the "head," seems to be Aa-faJiu-ti; 
but there is a break right after his name, and the 
next fragment begins with Ata. The name just be- 
fore Niifer-achi seems to be Ka-ni-ra (for Ka-cn-ra), 



History of Ancient Egypt 153 

and resembles Manetho's Che-ne-res. Was the first 
king of the Third Dynasty named Cheneres before 
he assumed the epoch-title Nuter-achif If so, how 
comes Cheneres to be at the end of the Second Dy- 
nasty? Did the insertion of the epoch-title force him 
back, and does he occupy the place of Huni, who 
preceded Senoferuf These are questions which still 
await their solution. As Eratosthenes confined him- 
self to "Theban kings," and in opposition to Man- 
etho adopted the part of the reign before the epoch 
as his epoch-reign, we must expect to find Soyphis 
with nineteen years in his list. 

In fact, No. 10 in the list bearing his name reads 
"Anoyphis," translated "Epikomos," with twenty 
years. Knowing that the name of this king, omitting 
the initial Zoser, was Sa-uf-u, which agrees literally 
with Manetho's So-yph-is, it is plain that Eratos- 
thenes originally had Soyphis instead of (An)-oyphis. 
Thus the epoch-reigns of these two great masters, 
the twenty=nineteen years of Eratosthenes before 
the epoch and the six years of Manetho after the 
epoch, when brought together after an interval of 
more than 2,100 years, prove to a mathematical cer- 
tainty that the reign of the one closed and the reign 
of the other commenced in the year 3764 B. C. 

A strange feature about the name is, that "Epi- 
komos" is not the translation of Soyphis, but seems 
to apply to Hu-zefa of the papyrus and Table of 
Sakkara, who is preceded by Nofer-ka-Sokari and fol- 
lowed by Zazai, Nebka, and Soyphis. We must not 
forget, however, that the present list of Eratosthenes 



154 



A Self- Verifying Chronological 



comes to us through the hands of an unscrupulous 
manipulator, who did not hesitate to place Menes at 



1 Senoferu 

2 Chufu 

3 Ratatuf 

4 Chafra 

5 Menkaura 

6 Shepseskaf 


cn 


Senoferu 
Chufu 
Ratatuf 
Chafra 




Soris, 29 

Suphis I, 63 
Suphis II, 66 
Mencheres, 63 
Ratoises, 25 
Bicheris, 22 
Sebercheres, 7 
Thampthis, 9 

Total, 284 


IN 


Saophis I, 29 
Saophis II, 27 
Moscheres, 31 
Mosthes, 33 
Rayosis, 13 
Biyres, 10 

Pammes, 35 


w 

W 

R 
tn 




10 
1? 


C^ cn -F^CM to M 

a> w 
oj o\ on 0\ 10 to 

Cn OJ OnOj vo "O 

II II II 



W 

n 



2600 B. C. (?), and would not have hesitated (for 
Hke reasons) to suppress the true translation of 
Sa-uf-u, 



History of Ancient Egypt 155 



MANETHO'S FOURTH DYNASTY 

There were only six kings in the Fourth Dynasty 
of Manetho; but their reigns covered a period of two 
hundred and eighty-five years, a remarkable average 
of forty-seven and one-half years. As Senoferu, the 
first king of this dynasty, commenced to reign about 
3680 B. C, or thirty-six years only before the epoch 
of Em-Mr, 3644 B. C, there were three epoch-reigns 
in this dynasty. These extra reigns, in connection 
with the notices attached to the reigns of the "Pyra- 
mid Builders," in order to identify them with the 
Cheops, Chephres, and Mencheres of Herodotus, con- 
fused the compilers and subsequent revisers of the 
lists, and thus led to the additions and omissions now 
apparent in the same. The restoration of the list — 
hitherto a hopeless task — has been effected by means 
of the assistance afforded by the Sothiac epochs and 
epoch-reigns. 

The foregoing table, in which the lists are placed 
in parallel columns, will enable the reader to con- 
veniently see where names have been omitted or in- 
serted in Manetho's list, and why it now apparently 
contains eight kings, instead of six. 

Senoferu and Chufu I each reigned twenty-nine 
years, so that the number twenty-nine appeared twice 
in succession in Manetho's original list. The epoch, 
3644 B. C, divided the reign of Chufu I into two un- 
equal parts, to wit: one of seven years before the 
epoch, the other of twenty-two years after it; in con- 
sequence of which the twenty-nine years of Suphis I 



156 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

were dropped from the lists, and the sixty-three years 
of Suphis II placed opposite his name. In this way 
Suphis II was forced down opposite the sixty-six 
years of Cha-f-ra (Chephres), and the name of Che- 
phres was crowded out and disappeared from the 
lists, so that the very existence of this distinguished 
epoch-king and pyramid-builder was in imminent 
danger of being questioned and ignored by the ag- 
nostic scientists. Mencheres was not disturbed, but 
his successor, Shepseskaf, who reigned thirty-five 
years altogether, twenty-five before and ten after 
the epoch, 3404 B. C. — received the twenty-five years 
before the epoch, while the remaining nine were given 
to Psamuthis (Phthampthis), the epoch-title of Shep- 
seskaf, which was mistaken for the name of a separate 
king. After this had been done, the separate reigns 
no longer footed up two hundred and eighty-four 
years, the required total of the dynasty. To correct 
this discrepancy some one added the fragments of 
Chufu's reign, that is, the seven years and twenty-two 
years, and the names of Ratoises and Bicheres, to the 
list, between Mencheres and Sebescheres, thereby 
forcing Sebescheres down to the line upon which the 
seven years stood. Thus Ratoises received the first 
twenty-five years of Shepseskaf, Bicheres the last 
twenty-two years of Chufu I, Shepseskaf the first 
seven years of Chufu I, and Psamuthis the last nine 
years of Shepseskaf. 

Egyptologists dififer as to the correct reading of 
the first hieroglyph in the name of the last king of this 
dynasty; some render it Aseskaf, others Shepseskaf. 



History of Ancient Egypt 157 

The ''Pyramid Texts/' however, in which this sign is 
written phonetically "Sheps," settle the question, and 
show that Manetho's "Sebescheres" is no other than 
Shepseskaf. We need not again remind the reader 
that in such forms as Neb-ka-f, User-ka-f, and Shep- 
es-ka-f, ra is understood, and that Manetho rendered 
them Neb-ka-ra, User-ka-ra, and Shepses-ka-ra, as 
shown by Kerpheres, Usercheres, and Sebescheres. 

Our list shows how the reigns of Suphis I, Che- 
phres, and Sebescheres were divided by the epochs, 
3644 B. C, 3524 B. C, and 3404 B. C; but the reader 
must bear in mind that these reigns and epoch-reigns 
were originally made up of years, months, and days, 
and that they were reduced to years long after Man- 
etho's death. In the Eighteenth Dynasty, for ex- 
ample, Africanus gives Amesses, the queen, twenty- 
one years, although her reign was actually but twenty 
years, seven months, and x days, and it so happened 
that he gave Armais five years, notwithstanding his 
reign did not exceed four years, one month, and x 
days. Thus it is possible that Cha-f-ra reigned but a 
few months over sixty-five years, and that Africanus, 
nevertheless, gave him sixty-six years. It is also 
possible that Shepseskaf was entitled to thirty-five 
years (twenty-six before and nine after the epoch, 
3404 B. C), although, according to the apportion- 
ment of Africanus, he seems to have but thirty-four 
years (twenty-five before and nine after said epoch). 
This view is rendered probable by the fact that Era- 
tosthenes actually gave him thirty-five years. 

The first king of this dynasty was Senoferu. It is 



158 A Self-Verifying Chronological 

certain that he reigned over a united kingdom. We 
read in an old papyrus that when King Huni ascended 
to heaven, Senoferu arose as the beneficent ruler over 
the whole land, A part, if not all, of Senoferu's claim 
to the throne was derived through his wife, Mertitefs. 
It seems that at this particular period of Egyptian 
history the crown passed in the female line. This may 
have been the result of the new law of succession 
established by King Ba-n-nuter. The inscriptions in 
the tomb of Am-then, who flourished just before the 
accession of Senoferu, show that a queen, 'Api-en- 
maafy ruled over Lower Egypt at that time; but no 
such name appears in the lists of the Thinite or Mem- 
phite kings. It seems as if the Memphite kings, at 
this time, were restricted to Upper Egypt and the 
strip between it and Memphis, and that the Delta was 
ruled by two other separate and distinct lines. 

The average length of the six reigns of the Eourth 
Dynasty, which was about forty-seven and one-half 
years, and the absence of any monuments or inscrip- 
tions indicating that the relationship of father and 
son existed between any of them, except Chiifu I and 
Chufu II, compel us to assume that they reigned in 
the right of their wives. Eor instance, it appears that 
Chufu I married Senoferu's widow, Mertitefs, which 
makes it probable that she was queen in her ozvn right. 
The monuments render it certain that Chufu was not 
Senoferu's son, and equally certain that Senoferu's 
son did not succeed his father as king. The fact that 
these six kings actually reigned two hundred and 
eighty-four or two hundred and eighty-five years pre- 



History of Ancient Egypt 159 

eludes a regular succession from father to son. Some 
have assumed that the crown passed to the grandsons. 
The reign of Senoferii inaugurated a new and ex- 
ceptionally brilliant chapter of Egyptian history. The 
country seems to have been more powerful than it was 
at any subsequent period. The monuments con- 
structed under the first five kings of this dynasty are 
so stupendous, and at the same time so perfect in 
workmanship and design, that the world to-day, as 
5,500 years ago, regards them with wonder and 
amazement. The portrait-statue of Chufu /, first 
identified by Maspero, conjures up before our aston- 
ished gaze the form and features of a monarch as 
grand and commanding as any that ever sat on a 
throne. The bright intellect and remarkable pene- 
tration of Maspero enabled him to immediately recog- 
nize the unique features of Chufu in this excellent 
statue; but this genial scholar and scientist has failed 
to explain to us how the "rude and savage" and 
"semi-barbaric" people of the preceding Thinite Dy- 
nasties were able, in an instant, to transform them- 
selves into a highly-civilized nation capable of de- 
signing and executing such masterpieces of art. 
Senoferu, although a Memphite king, erected his 
pyramid at Meydum, not far from the entrance to 
the Fayum. It seems that the line to which Huni 
belonged had its seat in this vicinity. If, as Maspero 
supposes, Senoferu was the son of Queen Api-en-maat, 
he must have belonged to the line which ruled over 
the Delta, for Am-then certainly filled many ofBcial 
positions in the Delta, e. g., Xois, Rakotis (Per-kodesu) 



i6o A Self- Verifying Chronological 

Buto, the Saite nome, etc. Mertitefs may have been 
the queen of the southern, or Memphite, Hne. The 
Pyramid of Meydum shows that Senoferu established 
his residence in the Land of the South, or ''South," 
as it was then called, which may have been done to 
emphasize his authority over the "whole land." 

The inscription of Soyphis, in the Island of Sehel, 
indicates that he ruled over Upper Egypt to Ele- 
phantine, which accounts for Eratosthenes calling 
him a ''Theban king." Manetho calls Soyphis a 
Memphite king; hence the line to which Sethusis 
(Sesos) and Kerpheres (Nofer-ka-ra) belonged must 
also have ruled at Memphis. This makes it probable 
that the dividing line between the Memphite and 
Thinite Dynasties was between Memphis and Heliop- 
olis and very near to Memphis. It was formerly sup- 
posed that the Pyramid of Meydum dated back to a 
period when these monuments were built in stages. 
Villiers Stuart was the first to discover that this was 
an error. Referring to his examination of this pyra- 
mid, he says: 

"It stands on what appears to be a vast cone of 
quarry rubbish that rises from a plateau similar to that 
on which the Pyramids of Ghizeh are built. On clear- 
ing away the rubbish, we found this cone to be con- 
structed of cut stone, and to be, in fact, the lower 
portion of the pyramid, which seems to have been 
finished only half way up, leaving the core naked. 
This core arises in three gigantic steps, and presents 
much the appearance of the fancy portraits of the 
Tower of Babel. The base has been used for a quarr}^ 



History of Ancient Egypt i6i 

for ages, and is now a wreck, and buried beneath its 
own debris. I measured the base, and found it to be 
four hundred and eighty feet square, while the base 
of the unfinished part measured two hundred and 
forty feet, exactly half." 

Rawlinson says : 

"It was no great advance on these truncated 
pyramids to conceive the idea of adding to their 
height and solidity by the superimposition of some 
further stories, constructed on a similar principle, 
but without internal chambers. An example of 
this stage of construction seems to remain in the 
curious monument at Meidum, called by some a *pyra- 
mid,' by others a 'tower,' of which Kig. 38 is a repre- 
sentation. This monument, which is emplaced upon 
a rocky knoll, has a square base of about two hundred 
feet each way, and rises out of an angle of 74° 10', 
in three distinct stages, to an elevation of nearly one 
hundred and twenty-five feet." 

The opinion voiced by Rawlinson was founded on 
the appearance of the upper half of the pyramid. It 
turns out, upon investigation, however, that the outer 
casing, which was built last, and generally of better 
stone than the core, was since quarried out and carried 
-away. The walls of the core "are perfectly smooth, 
and the stones are closely fitted." Hence it was a 
true pyramid, and its workmanship of a high order; 
in fact, the worthy model of the "Great Pyramid." 

Since the above was written, Petrie has advanced 
the theory that the primitive form of the sepulcher of 
Senoferu was a square mastaba, with the entrance in 
the lower part of the north face, and that it was after- 



1 62 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

ward enlarged by successive coatings of masonry; 
that this process was repeated seven times, resulting 
in a compound pile, of which the top surface of each 
coat formed a great step on the outside; and that 
the last process was to add one smooth casing in one 
slope from base to top, and so carry it up to a point 
at the pyramid-angle of fourteen on eleven. He says 
that two of the casings have been partly removed for 
stones, leaving the inside mass standing in a tower- 
ing form, and that it is the earliest pyramid known, 
as the "Step-pyramid" of Sakkara is not a true pyra- 
mid, but a mastaha which was repeatedly enlarged, 
but never coated over in one slope or finished into a 
pyramid like that of Medum. 

As the "Step-pyramid" was built by Nuterachi, 
nearly two hundred and forty years before the Pyra- 
mid of Meydum, it is just as probable that it once 
had an outer casing of fine and valuable stone, which 
was also quarried out and removed. It is possible, 
though, that Senoferu, before he became king of 
all Egypt, had constructed a mastaha, which was after- 
wards enlarged into a pyramid; but this is pure con- 
jecture, and the entrance-passage leading to the se- 
pulchral chamber under the center of the pyramid 
does not agree with such a theory. 

An astronomer who was not influenced by 
the various chronological schemes published by 
former Egyptologists, and who was ignorant of 
the Sothiac epochs treated of in this work, ob- 
tained approximately correct dates for the "Pyra- 
mid of Meydum" and the "Great Pyramid" by 



History of Ancient Egypt 163 

calculations based on the angles of their entrance- 
passages. G. F. Hardy, astronomer royal, in an ar- 
ticle entitled "The Date of the Fourth Egyptian Dy- 
nasty," published in the London Academy of October 
29, 1892, says: 

"Mr. Petrie's statement in 'Medum' as to the pas- 
sage-angle of Senoferu's pyramid completes a chain 
of astronomical evidence proving the commencement 
of the Fourth Dynasty to have been very approx- 
imately 3700 B. C." 

As the exact date was 3680 B. C, the coincidence 
is certainly remarkable. Taking a broad sweep, suffi- 
cient to cover the maximum and minimum dates of 
Egyptologists for the beginning of the Fourth Dy- 
nasty, he says that between 4900 and 2900 B. C. no 
star visible to the naked eye was within the distance 
from the pole indicated by the angle of the entrance- 
passage of the Medum Pyramid, which is 45°, except 
the sixth magnitude star one hundred and twenty-six 
Piazzi, which was so situate between 3820 and 3620 
B, C, its minimum distance being about thirty-six 
minutes. 

He finds the passage-angle of the "Great Pyramid" 
to be 3° 30' below the pole, and that of the Second 
Pyramid, 3° 31'; the northern "trial passage" east of 
the Great Pyramid having the polar distance 3° 22'-^- 
or —8'. 

"Now, at the date 3650 B. C. the star 217 Piazzi 
was at a distance of 3° 29' from the pole, increasing 
to 3° 34' by 3630 B. C. The angles of the trenches 



1 64 A Self-Verifying Chronological 

east of the Great Pyramid give the date 3645 B. C. 
The dates 3645 B. C. for the trenches and exter- 
nal works, and 3630 B. C. for the completion of the 
entrance-passage, with an interval of fifteen years, ac- 
cord with the probabilities of the case." (These two 
dates, it will be seen, were deduced independently 
from different stars.) 

In view of the complete failures of the French 
and German mathematicians to derive correct dates 
from calculations based on the supposed "risings" of 
stars, the success of G. F. Hardy must be pronounced 
phenomenal. My discovery of the "key" to Manetho's 
chronology, according to which his first book closed 
at the end of the first historical cycle, 2784 B. C, fol- 
lowed by the discovery of his general chronological 
scheme, had enabled me to accurately fix the begin- 
ning of the Fourth Dynasty at 3680 B. C, before I 
happened to see Mr. Hardy's article, so that I was in 
a position to appreciate the importance of the results 
worked out by him from data which were undoubt- 
edly contemporaneous with the reigns of Senoferu and 
Chiifu I. It will be seen that Senoferu reigned from 
3680 to 3651 B. C, and Chufu I from 3651 B. C. to 
3622 B. C. The epoch 3644 B. C, which divided 
ChuhCs reign, fell in his eighth year, and Hardy's 
date, 3645 B. C, for the "trenches and external 
works," is so near the astronomical epoch, that we are 
naturally amazed. It certainly required great scien- 
tific proficiency to incline the entrance-passage to the 
required angle. Although Mr. Hardy finds 3630 
B. C. (when the star 217 Piazzi was at the distance of 



History of Ancient Egypt 165 

3** 34' from the pole) to be the date indicated by the 
angle of the entrance-passage, it is possible that there 
may be a slight error in the calculation. 

It is said that the entrance-passage of the Great 
Pyramid was so constructed that an observer sta- 
tioned at the bottom of it could see the star nearest 
the pole. The correct angle, therefore, did not de- 
pend altogether on the calculations of the astron- 
omers, but was checked and verified by a simple and 
unerring ''practical test." I can not believe that the 
entrance-passage was completed as early as 3630 B. C. 
for the reason that Chufu II, sometimes, called Num- 
chufu and Ra-tat-ef, who became joint-king in 3622 
B. C, certainly completed the pyramid and probably 
the entrance-passage also. 

When Maspero says that all we know of Senoferu 
"is contained in one sentence: he fought against the 
nomads of Sinai, constructed fortresses to protect the 
eastern frontier of the Delta, and made for himself a 
tomb In the form of a pyramid," he indulges in one of 
those unfortunate rhetorical flourishes which have 
done so much to check natural and legitimate ad- 
vance in the field of ancient Egyptian history and 
chronology. A volume could be written on what we 
know of Senoferu, without exhausting the subject. 
On the rocks of Sinai there is a representation of 
Senoferu ("Made Perfect," "Perfected") smiting the 
hostile Mentiu. His title as "King of Upper and 
Lower Egypt," as "Lord of Diadems," and as 
"Horus," was simply Neb-maat ("Lord of Justice"). 
As "Golden Horus" (Har-nub) his title was Senoferu. 



1 66 A Self-Verifying Chronological 

Above the picture of Senoferu overthrowing the 
Beduin is the following: ''Senoferu, servant of God, 
who gives strength, stability, life, health, happiness, 
and power, forever; subduing the foreign countries." 
These titles are emblematic of a high state of civili- 
zation, the reverse of what might be expected of a 
rude and semi-barbaric king. The crown worn by 
Senoferu is neither the white crown of Upper Egypt, 
the red crown of Lower Egypt, nor the double crown 
of both countries, but Hke the double plumes and 
horns worn by Amen. His costume consists of an 
apron, ornamented by a cordal appendage, and a col- 
lar. In his uplifted right hand is the customary stone 
mace usually carried by kings. Here are themes 
enough for the careful and patient investigator, but he 
must not apply to primitive man the standard of 1898 
A. D. But as this work is simply a chronological his- 
tory of ancient Egypt, further elaboration would be 
out of place here. I must warn the reader, however, 
that the "Mentiu" mentioned in these old inscriptions 
were not, as Brugsch and Maspero suppose, 'Aamii, 
or Hamites, but Shemites of the purest type. The 
'Aamu, as shown by colored representations in tombs 
of the Nineteenth Dynasty, were yellow Asiatics, the 
Hamites of Genesis. The so-called Hyksos were 
'AamvL The Mentiu included the Beduin, Syrians, 
Assyrians, etc., and were more closely related to the 
Egyptians, who were originally Japhetic. We expect 
to show that the Japhetic race was the author of civil- 
ization, but that the Asiatic Hamites have always 



History of Ancient Egypt 167 

been, as they are to-day, borrowers, corrupters, or 
destroyers of this primitive Japhetic civilization. 

THE CHUFUS 

The traditional Cheops and the Great Pyramid 
have been so exhaustively described by other writers, 
classical and modern, that I shall limit myself to the 
most necessary observations only. 

The latest authority, Petrie, commenting on the 
two tablets engraved on the rocks of Sinai, one with 
the name and titles of Chufu, the other with the name 
of Chnum-Chufu, says this raises a difficult question, 
to which no historian has yet given a satisfactory an- 
swer. He adds that the name of Chnum-Chufu has 
been found in five places, to wit, the pyramid quarry- 
works, the above mentioned tablet of Sinai, the quarry 
of Ha-et-nub, the tomb of ^'Khemten," at Ghizeh, and 
two farm names of Shepses-ka-f-anch in the Fifth Dy- 
nasty. 

We have already seen that there were two separate 
Chufus, one of whom succeeded the other, and that 
Manetho and Eratosthenes, both eminent, careful 
and reliable authorities, distinguished them as Chufu' I 
and Chufu II. 

The first Chufu, the one who became the husband 
of Senoferu's widow, Mertitefs, reigned twenty-nine 
years, according to Manetho and Eratosthenes. The 
epoch 3644 B. C. divided his reign into two parts of 
seven and twenty-two years each, so that they ex- 
tended from 3651 B. C. to 3644 B. C, and from 3644 



1 68 A Self-Verifying Chronological 

B. C. to 3622 B, C. The last date coincides almost ex- 
actly with the date calculated by Hardy from the angle 
of the entrance-passage of the Great Pyramid. If, as 
I am inclined to believe, Chnum-Chufu was the son and 
heir of Chufu I and Mertitefs, he reigned jointly with 
his father for many years after 3623 B. C. In appor- 
tioning joint-reigns, Manetho usually gave to the 
father his sole reign only, and to the son, not only 
his entire reign after the death of the father, but the 
joint-reign also. Thus the fifty-nine years of Seti I 
include his long joint-reign with Ramesses I, who, 
therefore, has but one year and four months. The 
sixty-three years assigned by Manetho to Chufu II, 
in his chronological list, probably include the joint- 
reign of Chufu I and Chufu II. According to the 
records interpreted to Herodotus, more than one hun- 
dred and fifty years before Manetho wrote his history, 
Cheops reigned fifty years. If these fifty years date 
from the great epoch 3644 B. C, the joint-reign would 
cover about twenty-eight years. In the List of Era- 
tosthenes Chufu I has twenty-nine years, and Chufu II 
twenty-seven. Now, as the two Chufus reigned 
ninety-two years, the lists may have contained some 
such division as the following: 

Chufu I, sole reign, before epoch, 7 years 

Chufu I, sole reign, after epoch, 22 " 

Chufu I, joint-reign with Chufu II, 27 " 

Chufu I, sole reign, 29 " 

Chufu I, entire reign, 56 " 

Chufu I, entire reign, after epoch, 50 " 

Chufu II, joint-reign with Chufu I, 27 " 

Chufu II, sole reign, 36 *' 

Chufu II, entire reign, 63 " 



History of Ancient Egypt 169 

The Great Pyramid, which was commenced about 
3644 B. C, to mark the beginning of the Sothiac 
month of Em-hir, became the joint work and joint 
sepulcher of the two Chufus, whose reigns were so 
intimately blended that in the course of time they 
were regarded as one king, just as Seti I and Ramesses 
II were under the name of Sesostris. This accounts 
for the double tablet of Chufu and Num-Chufu in the 
peninsula of Sinai, and the appearance of both names 
in the Great Pyramid. 

We have seen that the birth of Ra, as primeval 
sun, was placed at the beginning of Phamenoth. Ptah 
in Lower Egypt and Num in Upper Egypt, as archi- 
tect of the solar system, presided over the month of 
Em-hir. As Chufu I was crowned in the Sothiac 
month of Tybi, Num-Chufu, whose name identifies 
him with the month of Em-hir, came after Chufu. 
The Horus-title of the first Chufu, "Hir/' indicating 
that Ra was em Mr, that is, in his highest sign, was 
assumed in anticipation of the coming epoch, because 
Horus was not Ra, but sa Ra, '*son of Ra." 

Senoferu, as we have seen, planned his pyramid 
on a grand scale, the base being four hundred and 
eighty feet square, instead of two hundred and fifty, as 
formerly supposed. The site chosen for it, on the rocky 
knoll of Medum, was calculated to set off its propor- 
tions to the best advantage. The Great Pyramid, how- 
ever, as conceived and executed by Chufu I, is of such 
colossal dimensions, that no structure, since erected 
by man, in any way approaches, much less equals, it. 
At Sinai we see Num-Chufu wearing the double crown 



170 A Self-Verifying Chronological 

of Upper and I^ower Egypt, instead of the plumes 
worn by his predecessor, Senoferu. Chufu I, as king 
of the united countries, abandoned the seat chosen 
by Senoferu, and the old site near Memphis, now 
known as Sakkara, where the pyramid of Nuter-achi 
stood towering over the Libyan Hills, for the old site 
opposite Anu, where Atoth, or *'Kenkenes," had hewn 
the Great Sphinx out of the living rock, and erected, 
within a short distance of it, a monument in keeping 
with the genius and skill of those early Thinite kings, 
of whom it was truthfully said, thousands of years 
thereafter, "in those days there were giants in the 
earth." 

The reader will pardon me for quoting the follow- 
ing from Petrie : 

"The essential feeling of all the earliest works 
is a rivalry with nature. In other times build- 
ings have been placed either before a background of 
hills, so as to provide a natural setting for them, or 
crowning some natural height. But the Egyptian 
consented to no such tame co-operation with natural 
features. He selected a range of desert hills over 
one hundred feet high, and then subdued it entirely, 
making of it a mere pedestal for pyramids, which were 
more than thrice as high as the native hill on' which 
they stood. There was no shrinking from a com- 
parison with the work of nature ; on the contrary, 
an artificial hill was formed which shrunk its natural 
basis by comparison, until it seemed a mere platform 
for the work of man. 

"This same grandeur of idea is seen in the vast 
masses used in construction. Man did not then regard 
his work as a piling together of stones, but as the erec- 



Hi ST OR Y OF Ancient Eg ypt i 7 1 

tion of masses that rival those of nature. If a cell or 
chamber were required, each side was formed of one 
single stone, as at Medum. If a building were set up, 
it was an artificial hill, in which chambers were carved 
out after it was piled together; thus a mere hollov/ 
was left where the chamber should be, and then it 
was dressed down and sculptured as if it were in the 
heart of the living rock. 

"The sculptor's work and the painter's show the 
same sentiment. They did not make a work of art 
to please the taste as such; but they rivaled nature as 
closely as possible. The form, the expression, the 
coloring, the glittering, transparent eye, the grave 
smile, are all copied as if to make an artificial man. 
. . . Art, as the gratification of an artificial taste 
and standard, was scarcely in existence; but the sim- 
plicity, the vastness, the perfection, and the beauty 
of the earliest works place them on a dififerent level 
from all works of art and man's device in later ages. 
They are unique in their splendid power, which 
no self-conscious civilization has ever rivaled or 
can hope to rival; and in their enduring greatness 
they may last until all the feebler works of man 
have perished." 

The same author, speaking of the workmanship 
of the pyramid, says : 

''The entrance-passage and the casing are perhaps 
the finest; the flatness and squareness of the joints 
being extraordinary, equal to optician's work of the 
present day, but on a scale of acres instead of feet or 
yards of material. The squareness and level of the 
base is brilliantly true, the average error being less 
than a ten-thousandth of the side in equality, in 
squareness, and in level." 



172 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

The theory often advanced in these days, that the 
people were oppressed and ground down by these 
great national works, has no foundation in fact. 
Everything that has come down to us from this early 
age points to a high civilization, in which deep re- 
ligious sentiment, humanity, morality, and an innate 
sense of equity were national characteristics. In such 
communities large numbers of people can always be 
found who are willing to work for good wages. Stu- 
pendous works of national utility, covering a territory 
as large as all Europe, have been executed, in the 
short space of one century, by voluntary and cheerful 
labor in our own Republic, the freest Government 
under the face of the sun since the days of the "Achiu'' 
in ancient Egypt. 

CHAFRA-CHEPHRES 
This Pharaoh is now chiefly noted as the builder 
of the Second Pyramid. We have singled him out 
for the additional reason that he is a very important 
epoch-king. His name, Cha-f-ra, "The Crown of 
Ra," who was nearing the highest point of his course 
when this king ascended the throne, is quite sug- 
gestive. When Chafra had reigned thirty-five years, 
Sethis rose on the first day of Phamenoth, and Ra 
of the Sothiac year reached the summer solstice, 
called hat, ''heart," by the Egyptians. Chafra, there- 
fore, assumed the Horus-title, User-hat, "wielding the 
heart," or, as we should say, the middle of the sun's 
annual course. It is hard to discover what Chafra^s 
epoch-title among the people was. He reigned after 
the epoch thirty-one years. As we have seen, Man- 



History of Ancient Egypt 173 

etho dated his epoch-reigns from the epoch. Eratos- 
thenes, however, took the part of the reign before the 
epoch as the epoch-reign. It is possible that the List 
of Eratosthenes originally contained nothing but 
epoch-kings, with the epoch-reigns, the reigns after 
the epochs, and the entire reigns, for example : Che- 
phres, as "Ratoises-Heliodotus," thirty-five years; 
Chephres, after epoch, thirty-one years; Chephres, en- 
tire reign, sixty-six years. In the present list the 
numbers are confused, and the names often corrupted 
beyond recognition. The seventeenth Theban king 
is Moscheres, Heliodotus, with a reign of thirty-one 
years, showing that Manetho's Mencheres influenced 
the original name, which resembled Ra-ta-ta-f (Ra- 
toises) "Gift of Ra." The eighteenth Theban king 
is Mosthes, without the customary translation into 
Greek, and, therefore, the repetition of a former name, 
with a reign of thirty-three years. This, however, is 
not so important as the epoch-title itself, and the frag- 
ments of the reign, thirty-five and thirty-one, all of 
which are fortunately preserved. There can be no 
doubt that Ra stood at the head of this month in the 
year 3524 B. C, and that such epoch-titles as "Off- 
spring of Thoth," "Perfect One," "Gift of Ra," "Gift 
of Hathor," "Gift of Amen," "Gift of Bastet," etc., 
were in common use at this time to designate and dis- 
tinguish the epoch-kings. Now, according to Man- 
etho's chronology, Chafra reigned thirty-five years 
before, and thirty-one years after, the epoch 3524 
B. C., and the List of Erastosthenes, supplying, as it 
does, the missing epoch-title "Heliodotus," verifies 
him to the year. 



174 ^ Self-Verifying Chronological 

Chafra named his pyramid Ur, meaning "great" 
in the sense of old, as in *'ur-wald/' ''primeval forest," 
and ur-gross-vater, "great-grandfather," because it 
marked the epoch of the most ancient ruler, Ra. In 
later times it became more and more the fashion to 
withdraw the knowledge of these things from the 
common people, and thus create an impassable intel- 
lectual gulf between them and the privileged class of 
the priests. Plain designations of this character were 
abandoned, and titles several degrees farther removed 
from the symbol itself were substituted; and these 
great pyramid-builders, who were certainly as relig- 
ious as any of their successors, were brazenly charac- 
terized by the priests as despisers of the gods and 
desecrators of the temples, charges as false as they 
were preposterous, but, for this reason, all the more 
efidcacious with the ignorant populace, which is ever 
ready to believe the most monstrous, unnatural, and 
improbable stories their crafty and selfish spiritual 
guides choose to invent. 

SHEPSESKA.F- SAS YCHIS-ASYCHIS 

The last king of this dynasty reigned thirty-five 
years. We have just seen that Chafra reigned thirty- 
one years after the epoch 3524 B. C. Add these 
thirty-one years to the sixty-three years of Mencheres, 
and we require the first twenty-six years of Sasychis 
to complete the one hundred and twenty years of the 
month of Phamenoth, leaving nine years of his reign 
for the month of Pharmuthi. This epoch-reign now 
appears at the end of the dynasty in the list of Afri- 
canus in the unintelligible form "Thamphthis," with 



History of Ancient Egypt 175 

the epoch-reign of nine years. A comparison of 
Psamuthis and Thamphthis, as written in Greek let- 
ters, will show how easily a careless copyist could 
have mistaken the initial "P^" for ''Thr The second 
''ph^ now substituted for ''w," is very common before 
th, as in "Phthah," a familiar form of 'Ttah/' This 
epoch-reign, which was copied by Africanus from 
Manetho's work, dates from the epoch 3404 B. C, 
and reaches down to the close of the Fourth Dynasty, 
or 3395 B. C. How fortunate it is that Africanus 
mistook "Psamuthis" for an actual king who reigned 
nine years ! We have already explained how Ra, the 
son of Neith, the Mother, the "Great Mother," was 
called Sa-neith or Sa-muth, or, with the later definite 
article, P'sa-muth, in contradistinction to Har-sa- 
hus-et^ " Horus, the Son of Isis." Psamuthi is derived 
from Psamuth. Herodotus tells us that this king 
built the eastern portico to the temple of Ptah (Vul- 
can), ""which is by far the most beautiful and the largest; 
for all the porticoes have sculptured figures and an 
infinite variety of architecture, but this most of all." 
He also tells us that this king, "being desirous of sur- 
passing his predecessors who were kings of Egypt, 
left a pyramid as a memorial, made of bricks." Ag- 
nosticism, falsely called science, disposes of such his- 
torical facts as these with a wave of the hand, although 
it vainly beats its head against the ponderous masses 
of the pyramids of Necherochis, Senoferu, the Chu- 
fus, Chephres, and Mencheres. The temples and pal- 
aces of Memphis have been swept away from the face 
of the earth, and the brick pyramid of Sasychis has 



176 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

not yet been certainly identified; but can this alone 
justify us in wantonly closing our eyes to historical 
facts as well vouched for as the pyramids of Cheops, 
Chephres, and Mykerinus themselves? It is evident 
that the eastern portico of the Temple of Ptah in 
Memphis was pointed out to Herodotus about 450 
B. C. He saw it, describes it, and compares it with 
others. It was by far the largest and most beautiful in 
Egypt. This must have been literally true. We now 
gaze in wonder at the ruins of Karnak, and uncon- 
sciously make the Temple of Amen our standard of 
size and beauty for the monuments and art of ancient 
Egypt; but we entirely overlook the fact that writers 
like Herodotus, who saw the Temple of Amen, after 
seeing the Great Sphinx, the Great Pyramid, the 
Temple of Ptah, and other monuments of Lower 
'Egypt, either fail to mention it altogether, or do so 
in such general terms as leads us to believe that they 
were not particularly impressed by it. The Laby- 
rinth, a work of the Twelfth Dynasty, then intact, but 
now destroyed, Impressed them more than the great 
temples of Thebes. It stands to reason that the por- 
tico built by Shepseskaf exceeded those of Thebes in 
size, beauty, and workmanship, as much as the pyra- 
mids of GIzeh exceed the rock-cut tombs of Setl and 
Ramesses. There could have been no doubt as to the 
builder of this portico, for the sculptures with which 
it was covered when seen and described by Herod- 
otus certainly proclaimed the name and titles of 
Shepseskaf to all who could read the hieroglyphs. As 
to the hieroglyphic writing of this period, the earlier 



History of Ancient Egypt 177 

tombs of Am-then and Mer-hat prove that it was never 
again equaled in after ages. 

Herodotus speaks of the brick pyramid of Sasy- 
chis as existent, and he seems to have no doubt that it 
actually rivaled the stone pyramids of Ghizeh in ex- 
cellence of workmanship and design. Now, although 
Shepseskaf was the immediate successor of Men- 
kau-ra, he did not build a stone pyramid at Ghizeh, 
where he could not expect to surpass the pyramids 
of Chufu and Chafra; but selected another and differ- 
ent site, where he erected his celebrated brick pyra- 
mid. Happily for science, the tomb of Shepses-ptah 
at Sakkara furnishes us with contemporary evidence 
of this epoch-king's reign. . The inscriptions testify 
that Shepses-ptah was reared among the king's chil- 
dren in the palace of Mencheres. After this king's 
death, Shepseskaf took the young page into his house, 
where he rapidly rose in the royal favor, until the 
monarch "gave him the eldest of his own daughters, 
the princess Maat-cha, to be his wife. And His Maj- 
esty preferred that she should dwell with him rather 
than with any other man." Pharaoh esteemed him 
above all his servants. "He became secretary for 
every work that the king was pleased to execute. He 
charmed the heart of his lord. His Majesty allowed 
him to embrace his knees, and exempted him from 
the salutation of the ground." Shepses-ptah also 
held the office of chief steward of the storehouses, 
was director of the mines, prophet of Ptah-sokari and 
chief guardian of his sanctuary and chief of the priest- 
hood of Ptah in Memphis. 
12 



178 A Self-Verifying Chronological 

Thus we see that Shepseskaf succeeded Men- 
cheres, and that there were no kings between Men- 
cheres and Userkaf, the first king of the Fifth Dy- 
nasty, bearing the names of Ratoises, Bicheres, or 
Psamuthis. Of course, after we have restored the 
true framework, the isolated facts can be arranged 
and fitted together Hke the separate pieces of a beau- 
tiful mosaic pavement. 

FOURTH DYNASTY OF SIX KINGS 

1. Senoferu, 29 years, 3680-3651 B. C. 

2. Chufu I, before epoch, .... 7 " 3651-3644 B- C. 
Chufu I, after epoch, as " Me- 

chiris," 22 " 3644-3622 B. C. 

3. Chufu II, Chnum Chufu, ... 63 " 3622-3559 B. C. 

4. Chafra, before epoch, .... 35 " 3559-3524 B. C. 
Chafra, after epoch, as *' Ra- 
toises," 31 " 3524-3493 B. C. 

5. Men-kau-ra, 63 " 3493*3430 B. C. 

6. Shepseskaf, before epoch, . . 26 " 3430-3404 B. C. 
Shepseskaf, after epoch as 

"Psamuthis/' 9 " 3404-3395 B. C. 

Total, "285" " 

EPOCH-KINGS OF THE FOURTH DYNASTY. 
(ADDENDUM, 1898) 

As there were only five reigns in this dynasty, 
omitting Chufu I, it is evident that the three extra 
reigns of Bicheris, Ratoises, and Thamphthis must 
be epoch-reigns. 

These titles, however, have been corrupted, and 
we must first endeavor to restore them. Beginning 
with the epoch of Em-hir or Am-hir, we shall see, 
when we come to the epoch 724 B. C, that Manetho 
introduced two equally appropriate epoch-titles for 
this month, to wit: *'Rokchoris," from Rohk-rir, 



History of Ancient Egypt 179 

"Great Heat;" and *'Amiris" or Am-hir-iy from the 
name of the month itself. Now we find that this 
month was popularly known as Mechir, which would 
give us Mechir-i, or Mechiris, instead of Amhiris; and 
what is Bicheris but a slightly modified form of 
Mechiris? It is well known that the Greeks often 
converted the Egyptian "b" into "m," and vice versa 
(comp. Be-n-ded and Mendes, Nub and Numbos, or 
Ombos). As Manetho's History was written in 
Greek, and as the lists of Africanus were extracted 
therefrom, and transmitted to us by Greeks, or at 
least by authors using the Greek language, the two 
forms, Mechiris and Bechiris, may be regarded as 
interchangeable. The transition from BEXIPI2 to 
BIXEPI2 was easy and simple. 

The title itself, in its simplicity and transparency, 
is characteristic of the genius of Chufu, who, disdain- 
ing to conceal scientific facts and great truths behind 
a veil of symbolical titles, preferred to let his gigantic 
intellect shine forth upon his people, the then civil- 
ized world, like the noonday sun, whose vicegerent 
on earth he was supposed to be. For this reason he 
was afterwards vilified by the Egyptian priests. They 
told Herodotus that he plunged into every kind of 
wickedness, shut up all the temples, and, first of all, 
forbade the Egyptians to offer sacrifice, and after- 
wards, ordered them to work for himself, etc. A re- 
mark attached to his reign in Africanus informs us 
that he built the Great Pyramid, and that "he became 
a despiser of the gods and wrote the holy book, 
which Africanus (speaking in the first person) tells 



i8o A Self- Verifying Chronological 



us he procured as a precious relic while he was in 
Egypt. 

Eusebius, after the fashion of the theologians, at- 
tempts to improve upon the remark of Africanus, as 
follows: "He became a despiser of the gods, and 
after he had been converted he wrote a holy book;" 
adding that the Egyptians held this writing in high 
honor, regarding it as a precious work. 

Chufu may have been a despiser of the so-called 
''gods," that is, the images which were worshiped by 
the unenlightened masses as incarnations of certain 
divine attributes, but he was not a despiser of God. 
He was, in certain respects, a reformer, and it was 
because he refused to play into the hands of the 
priests, who had already begun to hoodwink the 
people for their own individual gain and aggrandize- 
ment, that he brought down upon himself their im- 
placable enmity and ill-will. In the primitive doctrine 
of Life, that is, 'Xife with God for time and eternity," 
the "Two Truths" were Science and Life, or, as we 
now express it. Wisdom and Religion. Science with- 
out Life leads to agnostic atheism; Life without 
Science, to superstition, physical and moral degrada- 
tion, and, ultimately, intellectual death. Foreseeing 
the inevitable catastrophe to which the policy of the 
priests, in withdrawing from the common people the 
one truth (Science), and in giving them in the place 
of the other (Life) the worship of lifeless images and 
dumb animals, would lead, Chufu, according to L. A. 
Wood, caused the history of coming ages to be carved 
out of imperishable stone in the interior of the Great 



History OF Ancient Egypt i8i 

Pyramid. The entrance-passage, beginning above the 
base line, which represents the dividing Hne between 
the upper and lower worlds, and descending to a 
point below the base line, leads to a horizontal passage 
hewn out of the living rock. This last mentioned 
passage leads to a chamber under the center of the 
pyramid, the floor of which resembles rocks heaped 
together in hopeless confusion, representing chaos, 
where there is no light, no rest, and further progress 
appears to be impossible. Beyond this chamber is 
another horizontal passage which leads to Nothing. 
Now follow Science and Life — that is, agnostic re- 
ligion, or superstition, and agnostic science, or ma- 
terialism — thus separated, down the stream of uni- 
versal history, until you reach the dead level which 
leads into the impenetrable night and chaos of the 
Dark Ages, and you will understand the prophetic 
meaning of the ''Chamber of the Fiery Ordeal." But 
let us retrace our steps. Long before reaching the 
fatal base-line upon his downward course, man passed 
an ascending passage, securely sealed with immense 
blocks of impenetrable granite, which originally led, 
with ever-increasing splendor, up to the mysterious 
''Hall of the Two Truths," where Science and Life 
sat enthroned, side by side and hand in hand. Where 
now, we ask, is the irrepressible conflict between true 
science and true religion? Modern scientists, with 
all their boasted skill, were not able to discover the 
long-lost secret of "squaring the circle." Is it a won- 
der, then, that a noted scientist, when he chanced to 
discover that the square formed by the base of the 



1 82 A Self-Verifying Chronological 

pyramid was equal to the circle which had for its 
radius the perpendicular height of the pyramid, ex- 
claimed, in blank amazement: "The Great Pyramid 
has triumphed!" Are we not tempted to exclaim, 
"The Great Chufu has triumphed !" But another and 
greater surprise awaits us. Just before reaching the 
base-line, another passage, circumventing the impas- 
sable obstructions just mentioned, leads upward into 
the ascending passage, and thence into the "Great 
Hall of the Two Truths." 

The lists, beginning at the preceding epoch of 
Tybi, 3764 B. C, coincide with the epoch-reign of 
Chufu I, as recovered from Manetho, as follows : 

Second Dynasty, . 3764 B. C. Third Dynasty, . . 3764 B. C. 
Nephercheres, . . 6 Tosertasis, .... 6 

3758 B. C. 3758 B. C. 

Sesochris, .... 48 Aclies, 22 

3710 B. C. 3736 B. C. 

Cheneres (?),... 30 Sethosis, 30 

3706 B. C. 
Kerpheres, .... 26 

End of Second and 

Third Dynasties, 3680 B. C. 3680 B. C. 

Senoferu, 29 

3651" B.C. 
Chufu I, before epoch of Mechir, 7 

3644 B. C. 
Chufu I, as epoch-king "Mechiris," 22 

3622 B. C. 

The epoch of Phamenoth, 3524 B. C., as we have 
seen, divided the reign of Cha-f-ra so that thirty-five 
years came before, and thirty-one years after, it. 
Neither of these fragments has survived in the list 



History of Ancient Egypt 183 

of Africanus, but the epoch-title itself, to wit, "Rato- 
ises," has. On the contrary, both fragments, slightly 
changed, still appear in the list of Eratosthenes. We 
refer to 

17. Moscheres Heliodotus, . . . AA for AE 35 years 

18. Mosthes, Ar for AA 31 ♦* 

We can see how the list of Africanus, where 
Chephres has been crowded out by Suphis II, has 
affected these names. 

Moscheres is plainly an imitation of Mencheres, 
while Heliodotus is a translation of Ra-ta-ta-ef. 
When we bear in mind that Phamenoth heads the 
third quarter of the year (scientific division), which 
is presided over by Ra, we can not fail to recognize 
the importance of the epoch-title Ra-taios or Ra- 
tois-es, translated Heliodotus, which is unmistakably 
Ra-ta-ta-ef, "Ra, his Gift," or ''Gift of Ra" (comp. 
Peteathyris, Petubastis, Petechons, Petiphres, etc.) 

The Table of Abydus, where Ra-ded-ef takes the 
place of Chufu II, suggests a difilicult question. 

Was Ra-ded-ef, meaning "Ra, his stability," one 
of the distinctive titles of Chufu II? It seems to me 
that the artist who engraved the table for Seti I had 
before him an ancient list, resembling the Turin papy- 
rus, in which the epoch-reigns before, or after, the 
epoch were noted, and that he mistook the epoch- 
title of Cha-f-ra, which, as we have seen, must have 
been Ra-tata-ef, for Ra-tat-ef. In the list of Eratos- 
thenes, PATOISU or PATAIOS, now appears as No. 13. 
PAIQ2IS, Archikrator, with thirteen years==AE, Ar, ir. 

Here, again, Archikrator can apply only to the 



1 84 A Self-Verifying Chronological 

primeval Ra at the summer solstice, 3 ^^4 B. C. Now 
note the perfect agreement of the separate reigns and 
epoch-reigns : 

End of Chufu's reign (see above), 3622 B. C. 

Chufu II, 63 

3559 B. C. 
Chafra, before epoch, Ratoisis of Eratosthenes, 35 

3524 B.C. 
Chafra, after epoch, Ratoisis of Manetho, ... 31 

3493 B. C. 

We have said almost everything that is necessary 
to explain the epoch-reign of Shepseskaf. The tv^o 
fragments of this reign, originally twenty-six, and 
nine, years, appear in Africanus, the entire reign, 
thirty-five years, in Eratosthenes. Reduced to years, 
adapted to the Sothiac epochs, the list stands thus : 

End of Chafra's reign, 3493 B. C. 

Mencheres, 63 

3430 B.C. 
Sebescheres, before epoch, 26 

34^ B.C. 
Sebescheres, after epoch, as "Psamuthis," . . . 9 

End of Fourth Dynasty, 3395 B. C. 

The metamorphosis of Psamuthis into Thampli- 
this and Pammes may be understood by comparing 
them in the Greek : 

^ A M O Y© I :S 
© A M <^© I 2 
n A M M H :s 

Although the epoch-title, P*sa-muth-i, in the mu- 
tilated form *Tammes," appears in Eratosthenes, 
the translation "Archondes" applies to the name 



History of Ancient Egypt 185 

Shepseskaf ; for the ''Shepsu,'' in my opinion, were the 
elders, chosen by the people, who ruled during the 
Golden Age of the ''AchiuJ' 

How fortunate it is that in the complete wreck of 
this portion of the list of Eratosthenes, those items 
which are now wanting in the Manethonian Lists 
have been preserved. 

FIFTH DYNASTY OF EIGHT MEMPHITE KINGS 

The present heading of this dynasty in the Lists 
of Africanus, ''Fifth Dynasty of Eight Elephantinean 
Kings," is a palpable error as to Elephantine. 

After Eusebius had copied the First Dynasty, in 
a manner^ he merely enumerated the remaining dy- 
nasties of Manetho's first book in the most general 
way, making mistakes wherever it was possible to do 
so. In the "Second Dynasty of Nine Kings," he 
names "Bochos," "Kechoos," "Biophis," refers to 
*'three others," relates an incident under the "sev- 
enth," introduces Sesochris by name, and closes with 
the "ninth." In the "Third Dynasty of Eight Mem- 
phite Kings," two only are named, while the others 
are referred to as the "remaining six." The Fourth 
Dynasty is treated even more negligently. It is 
headed "Seventeen Memphite Kings of another regal 
family, of whom the third, Suphis, constructed the 
Great Pyramid, etc." Suphis II is the only king 
named. The seventeen kings did not belong to this 
dynasty at all, but he simply transcribed the total of 
the eight kings of the First Dynasty and the nine 
kings of the Second Dynasty. When he reached the 



i86 



A Self- Verifying Chronological 



r User-ka-f 

2 Sahu-ra 

3 Kaka 

4 Ra-nofer-f 

5 Ra-n-user 

6 Men-kau-har 

7 Tat-ka-ra 

8 Uon-as 




User-ka-f 
Sahu-ra 
Nofer-ir-ka-ra 
Shepses-ka-ra 

Cha-nofer-ra 

Men-kau-har 

Tat-ka-ra 

Uon-as 


l> 


Usercheres, 28 
Sephres, 13 
Nephercheres, 20 

Sisires, 7 

Cheres, 20 
Ra-ouseres, 44 
Mencheres, 9 
Tatcheres, 44 
Ounas, 33 

Total, 248 (218) 


•3i 

S3 


Myrtaios- 
Ammonodotus, 22 

Peteathyres, 16 


> 



Fifth Dynasty his patience was well-nigh exhausted, 
as shown by the heading, "Fifth Dynasty of thirty-one 
Elephantinean Kings," "of whom the first, Othoes, 
was murdered by his guards, and the fourth, Phiops, 
held the regal dignity from the sixth to the one hun- 
dredth year of his age." The two kings who are 
named belong to the Sixth Dynasty. The "thirty- 



History of Ancient Egypt 187 

one kings" are the ''total" of the seventeen kings just 
mentioned, the six kings of the Fourth Dynasty and 
the eight kings of the Fifth Dynasty, which he mis- 
took for the number of kings belonging to the Sixth 
Dynasty. 

Thus it is easy to see how the error of Eusebius, 
as to Elephantine, was carried over to the Fifth Dy- 
nasty of Africanus. The kings of the Fifth Dynasty, 
although of the original Thinite line of Anu, were 
Memphite, but those of the Sixth Dynasty were from 
Elephantine. 

There were but eight kings in Manetho's Fifth 
Dynasty, as still shown by the heading of Africanus, 
by the total of thirty-one kings copied by Eusebius, 
and by the Tables of Abydus and Sakkara, although 
the names of nine kings now appear in the List of 
Africanus. Again the notation of the epoch-reigns, 
of which there were two in this dynasty, is at the bot- 
tom of the seeming discrepancy. 

The total of this dynasty, according to Manetho, 
was two hundred and forty-eight years; but as the sep- 
arate reigns, including the extra ninth, now foot up 
two hundred and eighteen only, it is obvious that a 
reign of twenty-nine or thirty years has dropped out of 
the list. The reign which has thus disappeared, like 
that of Chufu I, is the epoch-reign of the king who 
reigned twenty-two years before, and seven years 
after, the epoch of Pachons, 3284 B. C, which was also 
the beginning of a Phoenix period. According to the 
Theban doctrine, Chons, was the son of Amen and 
Muth, notwithstanding, in the primitive cosmical 



1 88 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

teachings, he was the son of Seh and Nut. The epoch- 
king of the month of Chons, therefore, could well as- 
sume the title Amen-ir-ta-f, literally, "Amen makes 
the Gift," which is the same as Pa-ta-amen/' "The Gift 
of Amen." In this title, as in many others, the final n 
of Amen was completely worn off and lost in the 
spoken language, so that, in Manetho's time, it had 
softened into "Amyrtaios." Of course, "Myrtaios" is 
a corruption of Amyrtaios. Referring to the twenty- 
third Theban king in the List of Eratosthenes, we 
find Myrtaios "Ammonodotos," with a reign of 
twenty-two years. The translation into Greek, Am- 
monodotus, makes it certain that the original was 
Amen-ir-taios in the modified form "Amyrtaios." 

Bearing in mind that the epoch-reigns of Eratos- 
thenes precede the epoch, we have, following the pres- 
ent List of Africanus : 

Beginning of Fifth Dynasty (3404-10), . 3394 B. C. 

Usercheres, 28 years 

Sephres, 13 

Nephercheres, 20 

Sisires, ..... 7 

Cheres, 20 

(?) as Amyrtaios, ........ 22 " no 

Epoch of Pachons, 3284 B. C. 

Thus the missing reign in Manetho's List can be 
supplied from the independent List of Eratosthenes, 
and it fills out the Sothiac month as perfectly as the 
corresponding part of the reign from Manetho could 
have done. I say ^^corresponding part," because, as 
we have already seen, Manetho's epoch-reigns follow 
the epochs. 



History of Ancient Egypt 



In comparing the lists and tables, it is interesting 
to note that, as far back as the time of Seti and Ra- 
messes, the epoch-reigns appear to have misled copy- 
ists who were not initiated and did not understand 
their meaning. The Table of Sakkara, for instance, 
places Shepses-ka-ra, which is identical with Shepses- 
ka-fy the epoch-king of 3404 B. C, between Nofer-ir- 
ka-ra and Cha-nofer-ra, the latter of whom has usurped 
the place of Ra-n-user, a very noted king. 

The fact that the present list of the Fifth Dynasty 
contains nine reigns, where there were but eight orig- 
inally, is conclusive proof that at least one epoch-title 
has crept in somewhere. Taking the Table of Abydus 
as our standard, it is not hard to discover the in- 
truder. 

The succession in the Table of Abydus is as fol- 
lows: 

1. User-ka-f, . . . Usercheres= User-ka-ra, ... 28 years 

2. Sahu-ra, . . . Sephres, 13 " 

3. Kaka, .... Cheres =Ka-ra, 47 " 

4. Ra-nofer-f, . . '^Qph^rch.QVQS^No/er-ka-ra, . 22 " 

Ra-nofer-f, . . Sisires, after epoch, 7 * 

It is apparent, at the first glance, that Manetho 
has systematically changed the antique form ka-f^ "his 
ka," or "spiritual image," into ka-ra, "the ka of Ra." 
We may, therefore, assume that he likewise changed 
Ra-nofer-f, which signifies "the perfection of Ra," 
into Nofer-ka-ra, "Perfect is the ka of Ra." Chons, 
"the moon," was symbolically termed the left "eye" 
of God. The name in the Table of Sakkara is writ- 
ten with the "eye," which I have rendered ir, but, to 



I90 A Self-Verifying Chronological 

judge from Nephercheres of Manetho, was not pro- 
nounced. Sisires, then, seems to resolve itself into 
Sa-iri, "Son of the Eye," originally Seires, the epoch- 
title of Ra-nofer-fy after 3284 B. C. 

Contemporary monuments, as arranged by Petrie, 
afford little additional assistance as to the succes- 
sor of Sakura; the stone of Palermo has it Userkaf, 
Sahura, and Noferirkara; the Westcar papyrus, User- 
kaf, Sahura, and Kakau ; and the List of Ptah-cha-hau, 
Sahura, Nofer-ir-kara, Ra-nofer-f, and Ra-n-user, Of 
these, Userkaf, Sahura, Noferirkara, Ra-no-fer-f, and 
Ra-n-user left pyramids, named respectively Ueb- 
husut, "Purest of Places," Clia-ha, "Rising of the 
Soul," Ba, "The Soul," and Men-husut, "Most Endur- 
ing of Places." 

The second half of this dynasty presents much less 
difBculty. Manetho's separate numbers lead us 
straight to the next epoch-king, who was no other 
than Uon-as, the last king of this dynasty, now so cele- 
brated and well-known through the inscriptions in 
his pyramid, recently discovered, and lately published 
in beautiful style under the supervision of Maspero. 

Beginning at the epoch 3284 B. C, we have the 
following reigns: 

Epoch of Pachons 3284 B. C. 

4. Ra-nofer-f, aiter epoch, 7 years 

5. Ra-n-user, . 44 " 

6. Men-kau-har, 9 *' 

7. Tat-ka-ra 44 " 

8. Uon-as, before epoch. "Peteathyris," 16 " 120 

Epoch of Pa-«o«z, 3164 B. C. 



Hist OR y of Ancient Eg ypt 191 

The name Uon-as, ''Ancient One," in connection 
with Pa-uoni, is so plainly derived from the descent 
of the sun into the lower hemisphere, after crossing 
the equator on the first day of Pa-uoni, that it seems 
to be self-evident, for Ra became Osiris at the autum- 
nal equinox. The reign of Uon-as before the epoch 
appears in the List of Eratosthenes as number thirty- 
one, Peteathyres, with sixteen years. The sign next 
below the equator, we repeat, was called Hus-et, or 
Isis, at sunset, or the autumnal equinox, and Ha-et- 
har, or Hathor, at sunrise, or the vernal equinox, 
whence the two fishes. Isis and Atyr are two forms 
of the same sign, and, therefore, interchangeable. 
The title Pa-ta-hat-har, ''The Gift of Hathor," was 
chosen to mark this epoch more accurately than 
the name Uon-as, borne by the king during his en- 
tire reign, did. Neither the monuments nor the 
voluminous texts in his pyramid reveal any other 
name or title than Uon-as, which seems to be be- 
cause "Ancient One" includes and merges all other 
titles. 

As Osiris was also Uon-nofer^ "The Perfect 
One,*' Uon-as called his pyramid Nofer-hus-ut^ "The 
Most Perfect of Places." Petrie thinks he built a 
temple to Hathor at Memphis; if so, it was for 
the same reason that he assumed the title "Pe- 
teathyres." 

It appears that King Tat-ka-ra also bore the name 
As-as, sometimes written Assa, which is a duplication 
of As, "Ancient," giving it augmentative force, and 



192 A Self-Verifying Chronological 

meaning "Very Ancient." In the reign of this king, 
Ra had almost reached the end of his Hfe in the upper 
hemisphere, for he was supposed to die at the au- 
tumnal equinox and enter the lower hemisphere as 
Tum or Osiris. This occurred but once in 1,460 
3^ears, hence As-as was peculiarly appropriate and 
descriptive. 

In round numbers, Uonas reigned eighteen years 
after the epoch, and we can place the end of the 
Fifth Dynasty at 3146 B. C. 

FIFTH DYNASTY OF EIGHT MKMPHITE KINGS 

1. Usercheres, 28 years 3394-3366 B. C. 

2. Sephres, 13 " 3366-3353 B. C. 

3. Cheres, 47 " 3353-33o6 B. C. 

4. Nephercheres, before epoch, 22 " 3306-3284 B. C. 
Nephercheres, after epocti, . 7 " 3284-3277 B. C. 

5. Raouseres, 44 " 3277-3233 B. C. 

6. Mencheres, 9 " 3233-3224 B. C. 

7. Tatcheres, 44 " 3224-3180 B. C. 

8. Ounas, before epoch, .... 16 *' ■ 3180-3164 B. C. 
Ounas, after epoch, .... 18 " 3 164-3 146 B- C. 

Total, 248 " 

EPOCH-REIGNS OF THE FIFTH DYNASTY 

The great epoch of Pa-chons, 3284 B. C, is an 
exceptionally gratifying one, for I have discovered the 
epoch-titles and epoch-reigns of Eratosthenes and 
Manetho, which give us the reigns before, as well as 
after, the epoch. This month, as the name indicates, 
was sacred to Chons, who was sometimes called the 



History of Ancient Egypt 193 

son of Amen and Muth, sometimes termed the left 
"Eye of God.'' Eratosthenes, who pubhshed a 
Sothiac list of ''Theban kings," gives us the reign of 
Nofer-ka-ra before the epoch, as Amyrtaios-Ammon- 
odotus, with twenty-two years. Manetho, the priest 
of Sebennytus, gives us the reign after the epoch, as 
Se-iris, now Sisires, ''Son of the Eye," with seven 
years. 

Owing to the providential insertion of the 
epoch-reign of Se-iris in the Hst of Africanus, the 
original numbers were deranged and corrupted in 
such a manner that the task of restoring them seemed 
to be hopeless. The original total of the dynasty was 
two hundred and forty-eight years; but the separate 
numbers footed up only two hundred and eighteen. 
Where and how were the missing thirty years to be 
supplied? A comparison of the foregoing lists will 
show how the confusion originated. The undeniable 
fact that the Sothiac epochs have left their effects 
upon the most ancient tables and lists which have 
come down to us demonstrates that the Sothiac sys- 
tem was as old as the kingdom itself. 

The epoch of Pa-uon-i, 3164 B. C, fell in the 
seventeenth year of Uon-as, whose name is an epoch- 
title in itself. Eratosthenes, substituting Hathor for 
Isis, uses the title, ''The Gift of Hathor," or Petea- 
thyris, which is plainly Pa-ta-hat-har. The sixteen 
years of Peteathyris, when fitted into the independent 
list of Manetho, verify and sustain it to a mathemat- 
ical certainty. 
13 



194 ^ Self-Verifying Chronological 



Now, in conclusion, note how these independent 
numbers combine and coalesce as a harmonious 
whole : 

End of Fourth Dynasty, 3394 B. C. 

I Usercheres, 28 

3366 B. C. 

2. Sephres, 13 

3353 B. C. 

3. Cheres, 47 

3306 B.C. 

4. Nephercheres, as Amyrtaios, 22 

3284 B.C. 
Nephercheres, as Se-iris, . 7 

3277 B. C. 

5. Ra-useris, 44 

3233 B.C. 

6. Mencheres, .... 9 

3224 B. C. 

7. Tancheres, 44 

3180 B. C. 

8. Uonas, as Peteathyris, 16 

3164 B. C. 
Uonas, after epoch, 18 

End of Fifth Dynasty, 3146 B. C. 



History of Ancient Egypt 



195 



SIXTH DYNASTY OF SIX MEMPHITE KINGS 





^ a\tn 4^ OJ to 


hH 






User-ka-ra 
Meri-ra 
Mer-en-ra 
Nofer-ka-r 
Mer-en-ra 
Menthu- 
Nuter-ka-r 


p 







fo rp P 




> 




B 








% 





d 




h 








•-+> 








OS rjxJf^^ w 


M 


cn 





Phios (Phio 
Methusuph 
Phiops 
Menthesup 

Nitocris, 




"3 


H 

d 

> 




F n 


s* 


X! 




s 











13 


to 


M 




% 


5 


W M 5 ^"^ 


^ 


> 
53 






VJ 


H 


5 


s ^ J: j; ^ 


s 


33 






p 









►i 








C/3 






^ trl>0 








^- 0^ t3* 








S'iJ ? 
? pB 

2. ^ci CO 










W 




nephth 
osokara 

s, 




5cl 
> 






a 




w P 




M 








!^ 




)_i 




M 




ON M l-l 




en 




Vi 








- "fS 








^ - ^ ta 






»-t 

0) 







SIXTH DYNASTY OF SIX ElvEPHANTINEAN KINGS 
We have seen that the Fifth Dynasty was Mem- 
phite, and that the kings of the Sixth Dynasty were 
derived from a Hne located at Elephantine; and we 



196 A Self-Verifying Chronological 

have further seen how the confusion in the "headings" 
of these two dynasties in the Usts of Africanus was 
brought about. 

There was but one epoch in the Sixth Dynasty, to 
wit : the epoch of Epiphi, 3044 B. C, and, as the long 
reign of the epoch-king marked him so prominently 
that he could not be overlooked by the epitomists, 
the list of this dynasty has come down to us almost 
intact. The only material changes to be found in it 
affect the reign of Phiops II, and the total of the 
dynasty. We have shown that Phiops II, according 
to the remark copied by Eusebius, reigned from his 
sixth to his one hundredth year, that is, ninety-five 
years; but he now has the entire one hundred years 
of his life. The error was natural. The one hundred 
years of his life were substituted for the ninety-five 
years of his reign. The true total of this dynasty was 
one hundred and ninety-eight years; but, after the 
reign of Phiops II had been increased to one hundred 
years, the separate reigns footed up two hundred and 
three years, and the total was increased to two hun- 
dred and three years. Another circumstance favored 
this change from one hundred and ninety-eight to 
two hundred and three years. Manetho summed up 
frequently, and it seems had a sub-total of two hun- 
dred and three years at the close of the Seventh Dy- 
nasty, which reigned six years and "seventy days.'* 
The total of the Sixth Dynasty was, therefore, 
changed to two hundred and three years, and that of 
the Seventh Dynasty to "seventy days." In this way 
the erand total of Manetho's First Book, which was 



History of Ancient Egypt 197 

2,300 years, was not disturbed. This dynasty was 
one of the first singled out for hostile attack by Man- 
etho's modern opponents; but recent discoveries have 
demonstrated that Manetho's Hst was reliable and 
trustworthy, and that the same is supported and veri- 
fied by contemporary monuments. The Pyramid 
Texts prove, beyond a doubt, that Manetho's work 
was founded on accurate historical monuments. The 
wonderful inscriptions discovered in the pyramids of 
Sakkara, which have recently been published by Mas- 
pero, have made the names of Uon-as, Tela, Meri-ra 
Pepa, Mer-en-ra Menthu-em-sauf, and , Nofer-ka-ra 
Pepa, more familiar to the Egyptologist than the 
names of Seti and Ramesses. Each of these five kings 
has left us a pyramid and a volume of inscriptions as 
a lasting memorial of his life and reign ! 

The Fifth Dynasty came to an end about 3146 
B. C, or eighteen years after the epoch 3164 B. C, 
according to Manetho's separate reigns and dynastic 
totals, and the epoch-reign "Peteathyris" of Eratos- 
thenes. A simple addition will show that the epoch 
of Epiphi fell in the twelfth year of Nofer-ka-ra Pepa, 
the long-lived Phiops of Manetho. 

Beginning of Sixth Dynasty, .... 3146 B. C. 

Othoes (Tithoes), 30 years 

Phios {Phiops), 53 " 

Menthusuphis, 7 " 

Phiops II, before epoch, 12 *' 102 

^B. C. 

Phiops II, after epoch, 83 " 

Menthusuphis II, . . . i '* 

Nitokris, 12 " 96 

End of Old Empire, 2948 B. C. 



198 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

Before we seek the epoch-reign of Epiphi, 304^ 
B. C, in the list of Eratosthenes, we must again re- 
mind the reader that the above numbers are taken 
from the List of Africanus, in which the extra months 
and days are always apportioned, and that eleven 
years for the reign of Pepa II before the epoch may be 
as correct as twelve. 

We have already seen that Epiphi is the Greek 
form of Apapi, which was rendered "Apophis" by 
Manetho. Pepa and Apapi, therefore, are not the 
same name. The Apappus of Eratosthenes is the 
Greek form of Apapi, the epoch-title of this Phiops 
after 3044 B. C. The "Stela of Cheops' Daughter" 
shows that Ptah presided over the month of Epiphi 
in the time of the pyramid-builders; consequently, in 
the succeeding epoch of Epiphi, 1584 B. C., we find 
Seti Mer-na-ptah, or ''Seti, Beloved by Ptah," instead 
of Apophis, Typhonic Set being substituted for A pap. 
The twenty-ninth Theban king of Eratosthenes is 
called "Chomaephtha," translated "Kosmos Phile- 
phaistos." He has a reign of eleven years. The 
translation of Chomaephtha renders the Egyptian 
epoch-title certain. Pharaoh claimed to rule the earth 
as Ra rules the planetary system, and the word CJw, 
or Chu, expresses this universal rule. Maephtha, orig- 
inally Manephtha, is plainly Mer-na-ptah, ^'Beloved 
by Ptah," who was called Hephaistos and Vulcan. 
The titles Apappus and Chomanephtha, the eleven 
years of the epoch-reign transmitted by Eratosthenes 
and the separate numbers of Manetho, furnish evi- 
dence so clear and conclusive as to the exact date of 



History of Ancient Egypt 199 

the accession of Pepa II, that no reasonable critic will 
question it. 

No sooner do we arrive at absolute dates, show- 
ing that the Old Empire, symbolized as Adam in 
Genesis, came to an end, or died, 2948 B. C, than 
other events of equally far-reaching importance rise 
up and take their place in history. It was at this 
exact date, thus mathematically and astronomically 
fixed, that Thebes, as a separate and independent 
government, was born, and it seems to be providen- 
tial that the name Noah, by which it was symbolized 
in the Mosaic account, is phonetically and literally 
identical with No-da, "Great City," the distinctive 
name of Thebes in the days of Moses. 

We know that the kings of this dynasty reigned 
at the imperial capital Memphis, as their predecessors 
of the Fifth Dynasty had done; but we do not know, 
owing to the loss of Manetho's work, how a branch 
of the royal family, located and established in the 
frontier city of Elephantine, came to obtain the 
crown. A happy accident has preserved and placed 
in our hands the head of the mummy of Menthusu- 
phis I, the eldest son of Meri-ra Pepa in his old age, 
by his wife characterized as a "daughter of men," 
that is, not of the royal line. A life-like picture of it 
can be seen on page 435 of "The Dawn of Civiliza- 
tion." Maspero described the mummy as follows: 

"The body is thin and slender; the head refined, 
and ornamented with a thick side-lock of boyhood; 
the features can be easily distinguished, although the 
lower jaw has disappeared and the pressure of the 
bandages has flattened the nose." 



200 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

The learned author might have added that the 
size and harmonious proportions of the brain, the 
large eye, the high and broad forehead, the fine angle 
and delicate curve of the brow, the height from the 
lobe of the ear to the crown {cha) of the skull, and 
the full and esthetic curves in the regions of benevo- 
lence, veneration, and ideality stamp him unmistak- 
ably as the peer of the best examples of the modern 
Japhetic race. O, what a commentary on Maspero's 
"rude, savage, and semi-barbaric" Pharaohs of the 
Old Empire is this mummy and skull of Menthusu- 
phis I! At this time, as all the authorities concede, 
Egyptian art and civilization was in its decadence. 
We shall have occasion to again refer to this king, 
who was but a youth wearing the side-lock when he 
died, when we come to examine the inscriptions of 
Una. 

Although the published inscriptions found in the 
tomb of Teta fill a small-sized volume, and offer ma- 
terial which the archaeologist will not exhaust in 
years, we know little of his life and reign, except that 
he was the first king of this dynasty, and was mur- 
dered by his bodyguard after he had reigned thirty 
years. His Horus-title was Se-hotep-taui, which 
means "giving peace to the two lands," an allusion 
to Ra crossing the equator, at which time he illu- 
mines the two hemispheres equally. An alabaster 
vase found at Abydos has the name "Teta, Beloved of 
Ded," with a figure of Osiris, Ba-neh-ded (Mendes), 
with a ram's head, which indicates that he ruled in the 
Sothiac month of Pa-uoni. 



History of Ancient Egypt 201 

Merira Pepa was one of the most powerful kings 
that ever reigned over Egypt. He named his pyramid 
Men-nofer, in imitation of Menes, and during his long 
reign of fifty-three years built temples and monu- 
ments in all parts of Egypt. The celebrated inscrip- 
tion of Una casts a welcome ray of light upon his 
reign. This inscription adorned one of the walls of 
the tomb of Una in the central part of the Necropolis 
of Abydos. In this inscription he says he was still a 
youth, wearing the fillet, and employed as superin- 
tendent of the treasury under Teta. Meri-ra Pepa 
conferred on him the dignity of ''friend" and prophet 
of his pyramid. After this he made him a judge, and 
he heard all that happened in every secret affair, exe- 
cuted all writings in the name of the king, and served 
His Majesty in most confidential relations. Pharaoh 
ordered him to bring a sarcophagus of white stone, 
with its lid and tablet in the form of a gate, from the 
quarries of Troia. His wisdom and zeal pleased His 
Majesty, who afterwards made him "sole friend" and 
superintendent of the irrigated lands belonging to 
the crown; besides this he had to keep guard behind 
Pharaoh, settle the royal itinerary, and arrange the 
order of the nobles; all of which he did to Pharaoh's 
satisfaction. He was intrusted with other delicate 
duties relating to the imperial household. When His 
Majesty carried war into the districts of the Hini-shay 
with an army of several myriads levied in the Land of 
the South and the Land of the North, including 
Negroes from the districts south of Elephantine, His 
Majesty sent Una at the head of this army; he led 



202 A Self-Verifying Chronological 

them to the frontier of the Delta, between the gate 
of Imhotep and the fortress of Har-neh-maat (the forti- 
fied hne corresponding approximately to the present 
Suez Canal), where they formed, and marched into 
the country of the Hiru-sha. There they were com- 
pletely successful, destroyed the country of this hostile 
nation, cut down their fig-trees and vines, burnt their 
houses, slaughtered their troops to the number of 
many myriads, and returned bringing back great 
numbers of living captives, for which Pharaoh praised 
him more than anything else. His Majesty sent Una 
five times to lead this army into the country of the 
Hiru-sha, on each occasion of their revolt, and he 
bore himself so well that the king praised him beyond 
everything. 

It appears that there were rebels among these 
barbarians as far as the land of Tiba, which bordered 
on the sea. Una sailed in ships with his army, and 
attacked the coasts of this country to the north of the 
country of the Hiru-sha, upon which occasion he over- 
threw them and slew all the rebels among them. 
These were the acts and deeds of Una under King 
Meri-ra Pepa. The danger must have been great and 
imminent, which required a levy of myriads of sol- 
diers, not only in Upper and Lower Egypt, but also 
in the adjoining districts of the dusky Negroes and 
the blue-eyed Tamahu. As Meri-ra intrusted this dan- 
gerous duty to Una, I infer that these campaigns 
took place near the end of his long reign of fifty-three 
years, when he had become too old to lead the army 
in person. The frontier gate of Imhotep was built by, 



History of Ancient Egypt 203 

or named after, the second king of the Third Dynasty, 
and the fortress Har-neh-maat, as the name shows, 
dates from the reign of Senoferu. The land of the 
Hiru-sha, with its vines and fig-trees, was none other 
than Canaan, and it is hard to see how any Egyptol- 
ogist could place it within the fortified frontier of the 
Delta (now absolutely fixed by the "Pyramid Texts") 
or in the desert south of Canaan. The people tempo- 
rarily subdued in these campaigns were the Canaan- 
ites, who inhabited this country before Abraham came 
from Ur of the Chaldees, 

After the death of Pepa /, Mer-en-ra Menthu-em- 
sauf I, who was quite young when he ascended the 
throne, advanced Una to yet higher and more re- 
sponsible ofificial positions. Una tells us that Pharaoh 
appointed him governor of Upper Egypt, from Ele- 
phantine on the southern frontier to Letopolis below 
Memphis, "because his wisdom and zeal were pleas- 
ing to His Majesty," "because the heart of His Maj- 
esty was satisfied wdth him." In this ofifice Una was 
above all the officers, vassals, and servants of the king 
in Upper Egypt, a dignity which had never been 
previously conferred upon a mere subject. He ful- 
filled the arduous duties of the new office so satisfac- 
torily, that Mer-en-ra made him second in rank to the 
king, in which capacity he transacted all the business 
in Upper Egypt, performed the duties of superin- 
tendent of public works, and rendered judgment in 
all cases determined by the highest courts in Upper 
Egypt as second judge. We thus see that Una was 
a man of extraordinary abilities, equally efficient as 



204 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

adviser in private affairs of the most delicate nature, 
as superintendent of irrigated lands, as commander 
of large armies in the field and on the sea, as gov- 
ernor of one-half of the empire, as supreme judge in 
hearing and determining legal controversies, and as 
director of those stupendous public works, the ruins 
of which still excite our wonder and admiration. 

But all this is merely introductory to what we wish 
to notice particularly. After Mer-en-ra had dis- 
patched Una to the quarries of Ahhaet, opposite Sehel, 
to bring to the pyramid Cha-nofer at Memphis a royal 
sarcophagus and the lid therefor, and to Elephantine 
to get a door with its frame, etc., of syenite, he tells 
us: ''His Majesty sent me to Haet-nub (the alabaster 
quarries back of Tel-el-Amarna) to get a great table 
of offerings of alabaster from Haet-nub. I sent him 
this table in seventeen days. . . . This period 
(sapet) of seventeen days was in the third month of 
the She-mot^ Season (Epiphi); but as there was not 
sufficient water in the sluices of the canal to land 
safely at Mer-en-ra' s pyramid, Cha-nofer, I caused it 
to be transported there by hand, in order to carry out 
the command of His Majesty, my lord." The mean- 
ing of the words, Seth en uon-et mou Mr thes-u [mer] 
men-a er Mer-en-ra Cha-nofer em hotep, is clear to me, 
to wit: seth, "inasmuch," "since;" ne uon-et, "there 
was not;" mou, "water;" hir-thesu, "over the sluices;" 
(iner, "of the canal"); men-a, "to land;" er, "at;" 
Cha-nofer (the pyramid); cheper-en-a, "I caused it to 
be done;" em, "by;" a, "hand," etc. Of course, 



History of Ancient Egypt 205 

cheper-en-a must be read in connection with the pre- 
ceding paragraph, describing how he transported the 
''great table of offerings" down the river in a wide 
boat, built of locust wood, sixty ells long and thirty 
ells wide. 

Menthusuphis I, who was still under age, seems 
to have had a premonition of impending death, and 
issued strict orders to have the great altar procured 
within a certain short period. Ordinarily the quarry- 
ing, cutting, sculpturing, and transporting of this 
ponderous altar would have taken so long, that when 
it finally arrived at the appointed spot above Sakkara 
there would have been sufficient water in the canals, 
owing to the inundation, to float it to the landing at 
the foot of the Libyan hills, just below the pyramid, 
Cha-nofer. Una, however, used such expedition in 
executing the command, that he procured the table in 
seventeen days, as he himself tells us, which period 
was in the month of Epiphi. The waters of the Nile 
had not yet risen sufficiently over the sluices of the 
canal to float the large transport, or, as Una expresses 
it, to land at the pyramid in peace. 

Now how does this stage of the Nile on the i8th 
day of Epiphi, in the reign of Mer-en-ra /, tally with 
the chronology transmitted by Manetho, and verified 
by the astronomical epochs? 

The end of this king's reign was one hundred and 
eight years after the epoch of Pa-iioni, 3164 B. C; 
hence we can assume that Sothis rose heliacally on 
the 27th day of Paoni. In other words, according to 



2o6 A Self- Verifying Chronologica 

our way of reckoning, the 27th of Payni coincided 
with the 19th of July, consequently the i8th of Epiphi 
corresponded to the 9th of August. 

We have seen that the annual rise of the Nile be- 
gins at Elephantine about June 21st, and continues 
with fluctuating ebbs for about one hundred days, 
when it reaches "high-water" mark. After remaining 
stationary for some time, the river then commences 
to slowly fall. It results from this, that the inundation 
reaches its highest stage about September 19th. As 
Una's transport reached the landing above Memphis 
about August 9th, or fully one month and ten days 
before the highest stage of the Nile, it is clear that 
there was not yet a sufficient depth of water over the 
locks of the canals to enable the large transport to 
pass, although there was sufficient water in the Nile 
itself to float it down from Haet-nuh to Memphis. The 
exigency which made it necessary for Una to have 
the ponderous stone dragged across the intervening 
land "by hand" must have been great and pressing 
indeed, and yet Una did not outlive Menthusuphis, 
for Pepa II is not mentioned in his inscription. 

We now see how the immense stones used in the 
construction of the pyramids were transported to 
their present sites; they were conveyed to the foot of 
the Libyan hills in large, wide boats during the in- 
undation, after which they were pulled up to the top 
of the hill over inclined roadways, as occasion re- 
quired. 

Pepa I and Una were of about the same age, and 
their mutual attachment continued until they were 



History of Ancient Egypt 207 

separated by death. The reign of Pepa I is described 
as one of the most vigorous of the Old Empire. 
Petrie says his monuments are more numerous, and 
are spread over a wider area of territory, than those 
of any other king prior to the Twelfth Dynasty. Can 
it be doubted that this was owing, in a great measure, 
to the talents, foresight, and indefatigable energy of 
Una, who was over sixty years of age when he exe- 
cuted the royal commands with such remarkable ex- 
pedition under King Mer-en-raf 

Meri-ra Pepa had attained a ripe old age without 
being blessed with male issue to succeed him on the 
throne, when, relying on his well-established renown, 
he ventured to marry outside the old legitimate solar 
line, thereby violating a sacred, time-honored custom 
of the ancient Egyptians, whose devotion to their 
institutions Pharaoh himself could not shake. By 
choosing a wife from the "daughters of men," this 
"son of Ra" succeeded in obtaining two promising 
heirs, Mer-en-ra and Nofer-ka-ra, the latter of whom, 
it seems, was posthumous. Manetho gives Menthu- 
suphis I a reign of seven years, according to the list 
of Africanus, which may have been six years and sev- 
eral months. As Nofer-ka-ra reigned from his sixth 
to his one hundredth year, his birth coincided very 
closely with his father's death. With such a powerful 
and adroit friend as Una, now well advanced in years, 
Mer-en-ra had no difficulty in asserting his doubtful 
claim to the throne; and, after he had held the crown 
for over six years, the rights of his younger brother 
were admitted, as a matter of course, But there were, 



2o8 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

in many districts of Egypt, powerful lords, related to 
the old royal line, who considered their rights to the 
crown superior to those of these two boys. A letter 
from Nofer-ka-ra Pepa to Hir-chuf, recently discov- 
ered at Elephantine, in which the young king in- 
dulges in the most extravagant expressions of joy 
over the expected arrival of a "ding" or dwarf, shows 
on its face that he was still a mere child in the third 
year of his reign. This king's reign of ninety-five 
years, spanning, as it did, almost three generations, 
was the most phenomenal in the 4,000 years of Egyp- 
tian history; but the ultimate effect of it was equally 
disastrous. As the king grew old his grip on the 
reins of government grew weaker, and the hereditary 
nobles, who governed the more important provinces, 
grew more and more powerful and independent, until 
at last the authority of the crown in many districts, 
especially those most distant from Memphis, became 
merely nominal. Need we be surprised to find that 
Pepa's successor, Mer-en-ra II, probably his grandson, 
was forcibly dethroned and put to death by these 
arrogant barons after a short reign of one year and 
one month, and Neit-aker-ti, his "rosy-cheeked" sister, 
put on the throne in his place? They no doubt sup- 
posed that a mild and gentle queen would not inter- 
fere with their usurped rights, and that they would be 
permitted to rule their respective nomes unmolested 
by the sovereign; but they reckoned without their 
hostess. 

Herodotus tells us that the priests enumerated 
from a book the names of three hundred and thirty 



History of Ancient Egypt 209 

kings, besides Menes, of whom one was a native 
queen named Nitocris. 

"They said that she avenged her brother, whom 
the Egyptians had slain while reigning over them; 
and after they had slain him they then delivered the 
kingdom to her, and she, to avengfe him, destroyed 
many of the Egyptians by strategy ; for, having caused 
an extensive apartment to be made under ground, she 
pretended that she was going to consecrate it; but 
in reality had another design in view; and having 
invited those of the Egyptians whom she knew to 
have been principally concerned in the murder, she 
gave a great banquet, and when they were feasting 
she let in the river upon them through a large con- 
cealed channel. This is all they related of her, except 
that when she had done this she threw herself into a 
room full of ashes, in order that she might escape 
punishment." 

This story has been doubted by a class of writers 
who imagine there is real scientific merit in denying 
historical facts (otherwise well vouched for), even 
where they are unable to present any reasons what- 
ever for doubting them. To disprove false relations 
and idle fables by actual facts is scientific; but an un- 
supported denial is not. The world has long since 
discovered that the so-called "Father of History" was 
eminently truthful, even though he may have been 
over-credulous. In this instance it appears that an 
account of this tragic event, which brought on the 
end of the Old Empire, was contained in the book, 
preserved among the sacred archives of a temple, in 
which the names, lives, and history of three hundred 
14 



2IO A Self-Verifying Chronological 

and thirty-one kings of Egypt, beginning with 
Menes, were enumerated and set forth. The authen- 
ticity of the book shown to Herodotus by the priests 
is established by a fragment of the Turin papyrus, on 
which the name Neit~aker-ti, that is, ''The Victorious 
Neith," still appears. 

In conclusion, I will say that the name of the two 
Mer-en-ra's should be read Menthu-em-sauf, meaning 
^'Menthu is his saviour," and not Meht-em-sauf, as now 
generally contended upon the authority of Lauth. 
The sparrow-hawk above the sickle of the moon reads 
Menthu. Har means "above," and we therefore find 
the term Har applied to the planets which are above 
the earth; but never to Venus and Mercury, which are 
below the earth. The moon partakes of a double 
character, because Chons is sometimes above and 
sometimes below the earth. Menthu, or Mars, there- 
fore, is represented as above Chons; and Har, above the 
moon, represents Menthu. Although the names in the 
list of Africanus have been slightly corrupted (the 
first reading Methusuphis, the second Menthesuphis), 
they point unmistakably to an original Menthusuphis; 
for we now know from the inscriptions that the two 
names were identical — the u in "Methu" and the n 
in "Menthe" preserve the only missing letters. 

SEVENTH AND EIGHTH MEMPHITE DYNASTIES 

Although Manetho had but ten Thinite kings with 
three hundred and fifty years, followed by the Mem- 
phite kings with 1,797 years, in his general scheme, 
he nevertheless completed the two Thinite Dynasties 



History of Ancient Egypt 2 1 1 

with their seventeen kings and five kundred and sixty- 
five years, before he took up the Memphite Dynasties 
in his lists. In his first book he carried the Memphite 
Dynasties dov^n to the beginning of the Twelfth Dy- 
nasty, 2800 B. C, cutting off the first sixteen years 
of Amenemes I to complete the cycle to 2784 B. C, 
and then introduced the Ninth and Tenth Dynasties 
of Heracleopolis, the five hundred and ninety-four 
years of which extend from 2942 B. C, the end of 
the Seventh Dynasty, to 2348 B. C, the date of the 
Hyksos invasion, or flood, when this line was ex- 
tinguished. The claims of the Heracleopolite line 
were derived from one of the three lines which reigned 
contemporaneously between 3894 B. C. and 3680 
B. C. After disposing of this line, Manetho takes up 
the new Theban line, which became the imperial, or 
Memphite, line after 2800 B. C. This is the key to 
the two periods of Egyptian history which Egyptol- 
ogists have rashly pronounced hopeless. I shall here 
follow Manetho's arrangement, as I have found him 
to be a trustworthy guide. 

But little can be said about the Seventh Dynasty, 
as it continued for the short space of but six years 
and seventy days. Why seventy days were used in 
this instance, instead of the customary two months 
and ten days, may have been, as proposed by Lauth, 
on account of the seventy days prescribed for the rites 
of embalming; but as all the kings were embalmed 
after death, and the seventy days are nowhere else 
mentioned, there must have been an exceptional and 
nationally significant reason in this case, which we 



212 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

do not need to go far to find. The wholesale de- 
struction of the nobles who had taken part in the 
deposition and murder of the second Menthusuphis, 
coupled with the death of the queen herself, was the 
occasion of such a mourning in Egypt that these 
seventy days were specially singled out and commem- 
orated. All that remains of this dynasty in Africanus 
is "Seventh Dynasty of seventy Memphite kings, who 
reigned seventy days." In Eusebius it is "Seventh 
Dynasty of five Memphite kings, who reigned sev- 
enty-five days." As we have already shown, the six 
years have been lost from all the lists, but the num- 
ber of kings in Eusebius, namely, five, was probably 
derived from a heading naming the first king, to wit, 
"X and five others." 

The author of the Turin papyrus seems to have 
footed up at the end of the Seventh Dynasty. There 
is no break between Nitocris and the following five 
kings. Manetho also seems to have had a total of 
two hundred and three years, made up of the one hun- 
dred and ninety-eight years of the Sixth Dynasty and 
the six years and seventy days of the Seventh Dy- 
nasty. The rulers of the Thebais became independent 
at the end of the Sixth Dynasty. 

The Eighth Dynasty, as I shall show, contrary to 
what we might suppose, had considerable stability, 
and at least one comparatively long reign. This dy- 
nasty commenced to rule at Memphis, over a territory 
extending but little south of the capital, in 2942 B. C, 
at the same time that Achthoes, the "unbearable ty- 
rant," began to reign at Heracleopolis, near the en- 



HisTOR Y OF Ancient Eg ypt 213 

trance to the Fayum. It turns out that the first king 
of the Eighth Dynasty, otherwise unknown (unless 
his throne-title appears in the Table of Abydos), was an 
epoch-king, and, therefore, one of the most important 
epoch-kings in the annals of Egyptian history. If 
the reader will refer to the twenty-sixth Theban king 
in the Eist of Eratosthenes, he will find the epoch- 
title, *'Semphrukrates," translated "Herakles Harpo- 
krates," with a reign of eighteen years. This reign 
carries us accurately from 2942 B. C. to 2924 B. C, 
the epoch of Mes-hari, or "Birth of Horus." We 
have already seen that the Horus who was born in 
this month was called Har-pa-krat, "Horus, the 
Child," and Sem-su, which the Greeks rendered Her- 
akles. Now it is perfectly evident that Eratosthenes 
wrote the name Sempsu-harpokrates, another instance 
of how his names have been disfigured. As there were 
but eighteen years between the beginning of the dy- 
nasty and the epoch 2924 B. C, there can be no 
doubt that the first king reigned at least eighteen 
years. 

This dynasty continued one hundred and forty- 
two years, and seems to have had at least nine kings, 
showing that its end was more checkered than its be- 
ginning. These one hundred and forty-two years end 
at 2800 B. C, when Amenemes I, of the Theban line, 
obtained possession of the ancient capital, Memphis, 
and became the ruler over the whole land. It should 
be remembered that between 2948 B. C. and 2800 
B. C. there was no Pharaoh in the true and strict 
sense of the word. 



214 ^ Self-Verifying Chronological 



NINTH AND TENTH DYNASTIES OF HBRAKIvEOPOLIS 

There is every reason to believe that the "six years 
and seventy days" of the Seventh Dynasty cover a 
period of anarchy and bloodshed. A fragment of the 
Turin papyrus, providentially preserved, still shows 
that the immediate successors of Nitocris, to the num- 
ber of five or six, merely appeared upon the throne 
to be shortly afterwards hurled down again. The 
kings who did manage to get possession of the crown 
were not recognized as legitimate in other parts of 
Egypt. The local rulers of the Thebais, including 
a portion of Upper Egypt adjoining it on the north, 
asserted their independence in the year 2948 B. C, 
at the downfall of the Old Empire, and succeeded in 
maintaining it. 

At the end of the Seventh Dynasty, or 2942 
B. C, "Achthois," who was characterized as an un- 
bearable tyrant, established the Ninth Dynasty at 
Heracleopolis, an ancient city on the west side of the 
Nile, a short distance above the celebrated entrance 
to the fertile Fayum. Thus there was a divided king- 
dom, the Eighth Dynasty ruling over Lower Egypt 
from the ancient capital, Memphis, the Ninth Dy- 
nasty, at Heracleopolis, ruling over the Heptanomis 
and adjoining southern districts up to Abydus, and 
the Eleventh Dynasty (which should have one hun- 
dred and forty-two instead of forty-three years) ruling 
over the rest, including the Thebais and the Jhereto- 
fore insignificant city of Thebes. 



History of Ancient Egypt 215 

''Achthois," the only king of the Ninth and Tenth 
Dynasties mentioned by name in the lists, seems to 
be the monumental Mer-ab-ra Ach-ta-L Egyptol- 
ogists persist in writing this name "Che-ti/* claiming 
that none of the hieroplyphic signs begins with a 
vowel. Manetho, however, knew nothing of such a 
rule, for he invariably represents the initial sounds in 
such names as Athothis, Aches, Achthois, Amenemes, 
Amosis, Amenophis, etc., as pure vowels. 

A remark attached to the name of Ach-ta-i, in the 
lists, informs us that Egypt suffered all manner of 
dire calamities during his reign, which must have been 
a comparatively long one. We now read that he was 
devoured by a crocodile ; but this was a palpable error 
on the part of the epitomist who first extracted the 
item from Manetho's work. The crocodile, as we 
have already shown, was the emblem of a Sothiac 
m.onth, and was supposed to devour the month just as 
the hippopotamus was supposed to devour the year. It 
was the hanti of Epiphi, ending 2924 B. C, which was 
devoured by the crocodile, and not the tyrant Ach- 
thois. This dynasty reigned contemporaneously with 
the Eleventh Dynasty of Thebes, and as the future of 
Egypt depended upon the final issue of the wars 
waged by these two powerful rival lines, we shall 
have occasion to refer to this dynasty under the fol- 
lowing head, where the consideration of the life-strug- 
gle between the principles symbolized by Amen and 
those symbolized by the crocodile of the Fayum prop- 
erly belongs. 



2i6 A Self-Verifying Chronological 



KLBVENTH DYNASTY OF THEBBS 

We now come to the genesis of a new govern- 
ment in Egypt, which is exceptionally distinguished 
in the Mosaic account. We are told that Noah, who 
was born 2948 B. C, "was a just man, perfect in his 
generations," and that he "walked with God." The 
monuments which have survived to our times — and 
they are by no means so rare and insignificant as many 
suppose — corroborate this to its fullest extent, for 
they show, on their face, that the Antefs and Menthii- 
hoteps were not only followers of the primitive teach- 
ings of Life (religion is a modern term), and raised 
their souls in silent worship to the Infinite One, but 
that, as prominently proclaimed in one of the royal 
shields, they were "Preachers of Righteousness." 

We can not emphasize too strongly that the en- 
tire interval between the "Downfall of the Old Em- 
pire" and "Birth of the Theban Government," on the 
one hand, and the beginning of the Twelfth Dynasty, 
on the other, ivas only one hundred and forty-eight 
years, because modern Egyptologists, by adding to- 
gether, as consecutive, the totals of the dynasties, 
Memphite, Theban, and Heracleopolite, have swelled 
it to over seven hundred and fifty ( !) years, whereby 
they have involved themselves in hopeless darkness, 
uncertainty, and confusion. 

The Table of Abydus contains the throne-titles — 
not the names — of twenty kings between Menthu- 
suphis II and Amenemes I, but none of the throne- 
titles of the kings of the Eleventh Dynasty appears 



History of Ancient Egypt 2 1 7 

among them, unless it be Neb-cheru-ra and S'anch- 
ka-ra, who seem to belong to the Sixteenth Dynasty. 

But here, where we would otherwise be without 
a reliable guide, a kind providence has preserved for 
our instruction the celebrated "Table of Karnak," in 
which Thothmes III is represented as doing homage 
to his ancestors of the Theban line. Unfortunately, 
this venerable table has never been patiently studied. 
It was engraved and set up by order of Thothmes III, 
who was distinguished alike as a conqueror of foreign 
nations, a builder of temples and public monuments, 
and a patron of the arts and sciences. 

The Table of Karnak is a genealogical list of the 
rulers and kings of the Theban line, introduced by a 
few of the leading kings of the Old Empire. It was 
customary in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Dynas- 
ties to lead down to special lists in this way ; the kings 
selected for this purpose being generally Mena, Sena- 
ferUy Neb-cheru-ra, etc. Although some of the ovals 
are now destroyed, it is pretty certain that the in- 
troductory kings in the Table of Karnak were: 
I. (Mena); 2. Senoferu; 3. Sahu-ra; 4. An; 5. Asas; 
6. (Teta); 7. (Meri-ra); 8. Mer-en-ra I; 9. Nofer-ka-ra; 
10. (Mer-en-ra II). The purpose of this selection 
seems plain enough : Menes represents the First and 
Second Thinite Dynasties, which ruled five hundred 
and sixty-five years; Senoferu represents the Fourth 
Dynasty, which ruled two hundred and eighty-four 
years; Sahu-ra, An, and Asas represent the Fifth Dy- 
nasty, which ruled two hundred and forty-eight years; 
and the Sixth Dynasty, to which the Theban line was 



2i8 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

closely related (Noah was the son of Ivamech), was 
given in extenso down to Nitocris. 

The "hereditary prince" (not king) Antef follows 
Menthusuphis II in the genealogical line, which ac- 
counts for I^amech having one hundred and eighty- 
seven years before the birth of Noah — the one hun- 
dred and eighty-two years of Methusala and one hun- 
dred and eighty-seven years of Lamech seem to be 
transposed. This recognition in the Table of Karnak 
of the kings of the Sixth Dynasty, who were certainly 
of Upper Egyptian extraction, would indicate that 
the downfall of this dynasty was, in part, owing to the 
re-establishment, at Memphis, of the original L/Ower 
Egyptian line, and explain why the Seventh and 
Eighth Dynasties are again termed Memphite. 

The first Antef in the Table of Karnak is not 
termed ''king," but simply erpa (erbe), which is an 
abbreviation of erpa-he-t, literally "head-heir," *'erb- 
fuerst," or "hereditary prince." The meaning of this 
title is so clear that I can not see how there ever 
could have been any doubt about it. This "head" of 
the Theban line, although locally independent, was 
merely a provincial ruler, who still acknowledged the 
nominal supremacy of Queen Nitocris. Maspero 
gives a good representation, on page 115 of his 
"Dawn of Civilization," of the stela of Antef a /, which 
confirms the title of the first Antef in the Table of 
Karnak in every particular. We see the prince seated 
on the throne with his favorite dog by his side. The 
inscription, which runs from right to left, gives his 
title, "Erpe he-t Mr top ta en Uas/' "Hereditary prince 



HisTOR Y OF Ancient Eg ypt 2 1 9 

and ruler of the land of IJas'' (Thebes); after which 
we read : "Gratifying the king, keeper of the gates of 
the South, . . . giving life to the two lands 
which he loves, chief of the priests, and devoted to 
the great God, lord of heaven, Ante fa." The title 
erpe-he-ty coupled with the expression, "pleasing to 
the king," shows that the ancestor of the Theban line 
did not claim to be a king, but merely claimed to be 
the chief ruler in the Thebaid. His piety is estab- 
lished by the words, so rare in like inscriptions, "de- 
voted to the great God." 

The successor of this prince, in the Table of Kar- 
nak, was Menthu-hotep /, who is not called king, but 
simply "Horus." The title "Horus" was used to de- 
scribe an independent ruler of the southern third of 
Egypt, a scion of a young line which had not yet 
reached its maturity. In the same section two Antefs 
follow, each bearing the title of Horus. The last 
oval in this section, however; that is, the one immedi- 
ately in front of the figure of Thothmes III, is de- 
stroyed; but no doubt contained another Horus 
named Menthu-hotep, Thus we have a genealogical 
succession of five local princes, who were contempo- 
raneous with the kings of the Heracleopolite Dynasty. 
The last king in the third section of the table is an 
Antef, carried over from the second section; but as he 
bears the proper name "Antef," and not the throne- 
title of a full-fledged Pharaoh, the designation "king" 
may be an error, owing to all the rest of the ovals in 
that section, and the following section also, being 
headed "king." As the names in the fourth, or lower. 



220 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

section run from right to left, and as User-en-ra, Necht- 
en-ra, and Se-ken-en-ra, the last of whom engaged in 
war with the Hyksos, belong to the close of the Six- 
teenth Dynasty, it is very probable that Nub-cheper-ra 
and Neh-cheru-ra, whose proper names were Antef 
and Menfhuhotepy belong to the same dynasty, as they 
precede the three kings just named in the Table of 
Karnak. It seems that the last Antef, King Antef, 
was placed immediately behind the last king of the 
Twelfth Dynasty, to show the descent of the Twelfth 
Dynasty from the Eleventh Dynasty. Neh-cheru-ra 
Menthu-hotep appears in the Table of Abydos before 
the kings of the Twelfth Dynasty; but we are still in 
the dark as to the series of twenty kings, in that 
table, to which he belongs. It is possible, yea prob- 
able, that native kings of the Hyksos period were 
placed before the Twelfth Dynasty, so that the Eigh- 
teenth might appear to immediately succeed the 
Twelfth Dynasty. The vacant spaces in the lower 
section of the Table of Karnak were given to the 
last kings of the Hyksos period, whereby Se-ken-en-ra 
was brought next to User-tasen I of the Twelfth Dy- 
nasty, as the following sketch will show : 



History of Ancient Egypt 



221 



TABLE OF KARNAK— LEFT HALF 





►1 

I 


o 
k 

P 
P 

t 


X 

13* 

2 


1 

fD 


cl 

s 


9 




p 

1— 1 

8 


> w 
^ w 

2 o 

.11 

M 
M 


> 

L 


1 

d 

o 

?? 
3 

"^ 
p 

9 


B 

(-1 
< 




t 




e 


> 
B 

? 

en 

•-( 

Z 


> 
B 

ni 

B 

h 

I 


g 


I 






£ 




1 

o 


> 

9 


>> 




8 


2 w 


4 

? 
B 

n 




L 




9 


> 




03 


B 
O 

2 

z 


c 

03 

I 



Note.— In the Twelfth Dynasty we have substituted the well-known 
names for the throne-names, except in the case of Sebek-noferu-ra. 

There are some ancient tombs of this period at 
Asyut, in which the wars for supremacy between the 
Theban princes and the Heracleopolite kings are inci- 
dentally mentioned. 



222 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

The governors of the principality of Asyut, it 
seems, became very powerful and semi-independent 
during the latter half of the Sixth Dynasty. After 
the division of the empire, they espoused the cause 
of the kings of Heracleopolis, rendered valuable serv- 
ices to the new line, and in return received the title 
of "%^," which afterwards became so celebrated in 
the combination hyk-sat-u, "ruler of foreign coun- 
tries." As a mark of friendship and allegiance, the 
first hyk of Asyut assumed the name of the tyrant 
Ach-ta-i, now erroneously called Cheti (?) I. The 
name itself, I think, shows conclusively that these 
nobles belonged to this period of one hundred and 
forty-eight years, and not to the Thirteenth Dynasty 
period, when different names were fashionable. The 
inscriptions in these tombs, according to Maspero's 
latest interpretation, inform us that the governor 
Achtai I was brought up in the palace at Heracle- 
opolis, and learned to swim with the royal children. 
On his return home he remained the personal friend 
of the king, and governed his domains wisely, clear- 
ing the canals, fostering agriculture, and lightening 
the taxes, without neglecting the army. His heavy 
infantry, drawn from the pick of the people of the 
south, were counted by thousands. He resisted the 
Theban claims with all his might, and his son, Tefaba, 
followed in his footsteps. "The first time," said he, 
"my foot-soldiers fought against the nomes of the 
south, which were gathered together from Elephan- 
tine in the south to Gau on the north. I conquered 
those nomes, and drove them to the southern frontier. 



History of Ancient Egypt 223 

I overran the left bank of the Nile in all directions. 
When I came to a town I threw down its walls, seized 
its chief, and imprisoned him at the port until he paid 
me ransom. As soon as I had finished with the left 
bank, and there were no longer found any who dare 
resist, I passed over to the right bank; like a swift 
hare I set sail for another chief. ... I sailed by 
the north wind as by the east, by the south wind as by 
the west, and him whose ship 'I boarded I vanquished 
utterly; he was cast into the river, his boats fled to 
shore, his soldiers were as bulls upon whom the lion 
falleth; I compassed his city from end to end, I seized 
his goods and cast them into the fire." He further 
informs us that he "extinguished the rebellion by the 
counsel, and according to the tactics, of Up-uay-t, 
lord of Asyut." From this time "no district of the 
desert was safe from his terrors;" he "carried flame at 
his pleasure among the nomes of the south." He 
administered such strict justice that evil-doers dis- 
appeared as if by magic. "When night came, he who 
slept on the roads blessed me, because he was as safe 
as in his own house; for the fear which was shed 
abroad by my soldiers protected him; and the cattle 
of the fields were as safe there as in the stable; the 
thief had become an abomination to the god, and he 
no longer oppressed the serf, so that the latter ceased 
to complain, and paid the exact dues of his land for 
love of me." 

In the time of the second hyk, bearing the name 
of Achtai, the son of Tefaha, and grandson of the first 
Achtai, the authority of the kings of Heracleopolis 



224 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

had become very weak; for the people of this city 
drove out the king Meri-kara, who was obliged to 
take refuge in Asyut with his friend, the powerful 
hyk AchtaL This noble gathered together an exten- 
sive fleet, which encumbered the Nile from one end 
of the Terebinth nome to the other. If we may be- 
lieve Achtai, the rebels united with the Thebans in 
vain; he "sowed terror over the world, and himself 
alone chastised the nomes of the south." As he de- 
scended the Nile to restore Meri-ka-ra to his capital, 
"the sky grew serene, and the whole country rallied 
around him; the commanders of the south and the 
archons of Heracleopolis trembled when the royal 
urseus, ruler of the world, came to suppress crime; 
the earth trembled, the south took ship and fled, all 
men fled in dismay, the towns surrendered, and fear 
took hold on their members." 

When Meri-ka-ra came to Heracleopolis "the peo- 
ple ran forth to meet him, rejoicing in their lord; 
women and men together, old men as well as chil- 
dren." But the temporary success thus chronicled 
was more apparent than real. The Thebans returned 
in greater force, and the kings of HeracleopoHs suc- 
cumbed before the superior virtue of the southern 
line. The line of Heracleopolis was not extinguished, 
but continued on as a local, subordinate line under 
the Twelfth Dynasty, and during the period of the 
divided kingdom which followed it, until it disap- 
peared in the general wreck of the Hyksos Flood. 

I think the overthrow of Heracleopolis by Thebes 
occurred about one hundred and nine vears after 



History of Ancient Egypt 225 

2942 B. C, which accounts for Eusebius giving the 
Ninth Dynasty one hundred (one hundred and nine) 
years, and the Eleventh Dynasty forty-three (thirty- 
three) years, for both these numbers appear to be de- 
rived from Manetho's work. 

The four hundred and eighty-five years of the 
Tenth Dynasty represent a period such as the three 
hundred and fifty years of the Thinite kings, the four 
hundred and fifty-three years of the Theban kings, 
and the five hundred and eleven years of the Hyksos 
denomination — all derived from Manetho's work. 
We have seen that the total number of kings in the 
main line to the beginning of the Seventh Dynasty 
was thirty-seven. The six kings of the Seventh Dy- 
nasty increase this total to forty-three kings. Now it 
is significant that the nine kings of the Eighth Dy- 
nasty and the six rulers of the Eleventh Dynasty, who 
were contemporary for one hundred and forty-two 
years, give us the required total of ninety-two kings. 

While on this subject, an opinion advanced by 
Petrie claims our attention. This learned writer seeks 
to identify User-en-ra, who follows Nub-cheper-ra 
(Antef) in the lower section of the left half of the 
Table of Karnak, with the Hyksos king, Chi-an. 
Naville discovered the lower portion of a sitting statue 
of Cha-i-an at Bubastis. The name was first read 
Ra-ian; but turns out to be "Se-user-en-ra Cha-i-an/' 
as plainly shown by scarabs and cylinders bearing his 
name. This king styled himself "hyk-sat-it,'' as well 
as "King of Upper and Lower Egypt," which stamps 
him unmistakably as a hyksos-king; and Petrie's 
15 



226 A Self-Verifying Chronological 

theory that he belonged to the period between the 
Sixth and Twelfth Dynasties falls to the ground. 
Manetho evidently found no documents or monu- 
ments placing hyksos-kings in this period, for all will 
admit that the dynasties of Memphis, Heracleopolis, 
and Thebes, assigned by him to this period, were 
native Egyptians, and not Hamites. The style and 
workmanship of the statue itself resembles that of the 
monuments dating from the end of the Thirteenth 
Dynasty. In the Table of Karnak, User-en-ra, which 
may be the same as Se-user-en-ra, appears immediately 
before Necht-en-ra, who precedes Se-ken-en-ra, both 
of whom belong to the close of the Sixteenth Dynasty 
and Hyksos period. It is probable that intermar- 
riages took place between the families of the Six- 
teenth Theban and Seventeenth Hyksos Dynasties, 
for Manetho described the two lines as "Hyksos and 
Theban kings/' and, therefore, as ruling jointly. 
Cha-i-an may have been a common ancestor to both 
lines, which would explain his appearance in the table, 
or User-en-ra may have been the contemporary 
Theban king to Se-user-en-ra Cha-i-an. 

Necht-en-ra appears on a libation-table, now at 
Marseilles, in company with Se-ken-en-ra Ta-oa-ken, 
under whom the ship-captain Aahmes was born. The 
right half of the Table of Karnak contains the throne- 
titles of thirty Theban kings belonging to the Thir- 
teenth, Fifteenth, and Sixteenth Dynasties of Man- 
etho; but as there was no room for the last seven 
kings of the Sixteenth Dynasty in this half of the 
table, they were disposed of in the lower section of 



History of Ancient Egypt 227 

the left half. Thus there were thirty-eight kings, in 
a genealogical succession, between the Twelfth and 
Eighteenth Dynasties, a period of over seven hundred 
and fifty years, making the average reign about 
twenty years. Manetho had fifty-nine kings during 
the same period. This is the key to the long list of 
Theban ''ancestors," to wit, fifty-one, specially hon- 
ored by Thothmes III in the Table of Karnak. 

We have already called attention to the fact that 
one of the kings of this dynasty. Ante f -da, bore the 
title "preacher of righteousness," and we might add 
that this was his Horus-title, and also an integral part 
of his titles as king inclosed in the royal shield. The 
monuments show that the rulers of this dynasty were 
just and perfect in their generations, devoted to God, 
and ''proclaimers of righteousness;" but it would 
carry me beyond the scope of this work to attempt to 
give the evidence in detail. 

In conclusion, we wish to call attention to the fol- 
lowing from Josephus : "Now Lamech, when he had 
governed seven hundred and seventy-seven (one hun- 
dred and eighty-seven) years, appointed Noah, his 
son, to be ruler of the people, who was born to 
Lamech when he was one hundred and eighty-two 
(one hundred and eighty-seven) years old, and re- 
tained the government nine hundred and fifty years." 

The evolution of these "governments" into indi- 
viduals was a slow and gradual process, which had 
not been fully completed when Josephus wrote his 
Antiquities of the Jews. It seems that the text con- 
sulted by Josephus then showed that Noah was not 



228 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

derived regularly from the preceding government; 
but was appointed *'to be ruler of the people." Now 
there is every reason to befieve that the first Antef 
derived his title in this way, that Pharaoh appointed 
him ruler over the Thebaid towards the close of the 
Sixth Dynasty. The nine hundred and fifty years 
during which Noah "retained the government," date 
from his birth (2948 B. C). According to Manetho, 
there were only eight hundred and fifty years between 
the birth of the Theban Government and the begin- 
ning of the Hyksos Dynasty (Mizraim), hence these 
nine hundred and fifty years necessarily include the 
first one hundred years of the contemporary Sixteenth 
Theban Dynasty. Was it for this reason that the two 
hundred and fifty-one years of the bogus Seventeenth 
Dynasty were changed to one hundred and fifty-one? 

Speaking of the Flood, Josephus says: "This ca- 
lamity happened in the six hundredth year of Noah's 
government, in the second month, called by the Mace- 
donians Dius, but by the Hebrews Marchesuan; for 
so did they order their year in Egypt" 

Here again we see that Noah was originally the 
name of a government, which had existed six hun- 
dred years when the Flood swept over the land, and 
we need but attach the Egyptian dates to those of 
Genesis, or vice versa, to arrive at the exact date of 
the Hyksos Invasion, as verified by the astronomical 
epochs. The phrase, "for so did they order their year 
in Egypt," shows that the text used by Josephus orig- 
inally recognized Egypt as the land governed by 
Noah and overwhelmed by the Flood. 



History of Ancient Egypt 229 



ELEVENTH DYNASTY, FROM TABLE OF KARNAK 

1. Erpe het Ante/a, " ruler of the land of Thebes." 

2. Har Menthu-hotep I {Neb-ho-tep, Sa-ra-Menthu- 

hotep in shields below title of king). 

3. Har Aiitef I {Har, Uah-anch, King and Sa-ra, 

Ante/, not inclosed). 

4. Har Antef II 6a (Horus, Up-ut-maat, King Ra- 

seshes Upet-maat, Sa-ra, Antef-6a, all in 
separate shields). 

5. Har Menthu-hotep II (Horus Neb-taui, Lord of 

Diadems Neb-taui, Nub-nuteru, King Ra- 
neb-taui, Sa-ra Menthuhotep). 

6. King Antef III {King Ra-seshes Hir-maat, Suten- 

Anief). 

The key to the correct succession of the six 
Antef s and Menthuhoteps, shown on the Table of Kar- 
nak, is to be found in the titles assumed by them to 
mark their rank and official dignity. There is a rapid 
progression from the "Erpe hef of the first, to the 
"King" of the last, for King Antef was not only King 
Ra-seshes Hir-maat, but was Suten (King) Antef, in- 
stead of Sa-ra Antef, which may account for his title 
as king being Antef instead of Ra-seshes Hir-maat in 
the table. 

We have already had occasion to notice the first 
Antefa, who was appointed ruler (hir-top) of the peo- 
ple of the land of ''Uas." All the rest, except the last, 
are termed Horus, not King, which was intended to 
describe independent rulers of the Thebaid. Their 
titles on their monuments, however, show a rapid 
advance in power and dignity, culminating in Antef 
III, who styles himself "King Antef" instead of 
"Sa-ra Antef." 



230 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

The last one called Horus, presumably Menthu- 
hotep II, is specially honored in the Table, like Mena, 
Amenemes I, and Usertasen I, by being placed im- 
mediately in front of the figure of Thothmes III, in- 
dicating that he enjoyed the reputation of being the 
greatest ruler of the dynasty. It will be seen that he 
assumed the titles of royalty; but the honor itself was 
reserved for his successor (King Antef). 

On the monuments, Antef -da has the Horus-title 
Upet-maat, 'Treacher of Righteousness," and the 
throne-title, Ra-seshes upet-maat. King Antef pat- 
terned his throne-title after this, for it reads, "Ra- 
seshes hir-maat," showing that Antef the Great had 
earned his distinctive title in the opinion of his suc- 
cessor. King Antef. It was logical to let a new 
dynasty follow the reign of the Theban ruler, who had 
extended his authority over the whole land, and could 
be crowned as Pharaoh in the ancient capital of 
Memphis. 

We feel confident that we have placed Menthu- 
hotep II, who bore the title Neb-tau-i, '%ord of the 
two Lands,'* in his correct position, for the additional 
reason that a Hib-sed or "Sed-festival" was celebrated 
in the second year of his reign, which, therefore, cor- 
responded to the year 2864 B. C, giving us eighty- 
three years for the reigns of his three predecessors, 
and sixty-five years for the reigns of himself and King 
Antef — a natural and probable division of the period 
of one hundred and forty-eight years between the five 
rulers who succeeded the local prince Antef. 

We have identified the first Horus, Menthii-hotep /, 



History of Ancient Egypt 231 

with the ruler of the same name bearing the addi- 
tional title, Neh-hotep, "Lord of Peace," because this 
title, together with Sa-ra itself, is inclosed in the shield 
containing his name, showing the first step towards 
the regal dignity. The title, "Lord of Peace," was 
suggested by the Sothiac month of Mesori, "Birth 
of Horus." The child of Isis and Osiris (like Chons, 
the child of Amen and Muth) was regarded as the 
bringer of peace, and styled the "Peace-loving." 

Antef I, whose Horus-title was Uah-anch, "Man- 
sion of Life," also inclosed Sa-ra in the shield con- 
taining his name, Antef, placing the bee and plant, 
symbolizing "King of Upper and Lower Egypt," di- 
rectly above the shield. The funerary stela found in 
his tomb, which was a small brick pyramid, built on 
the west side of the Nile opposite Thebes, contains a 
representation of this king and his four pet dogs, 
showing that he inherited his grandfather's hobby, 
and, in this respect at least, was a worthy scion of the 
"ancestor" of the line. The inscription on this tablet 
still remaining — for the upper portion of it is de- 
stroyed — informs us that Horus Uah-anch, Antef cap- 
tured Abydos, and opened its prisons, built temples, 
dug canals, benefited his city, and (what was equally 
important in a new line) left the succession to his son. 
The inscription further informs us that the tablet was 
set up in the fiftieth year of his reign. 

The tomb of this king is the Urst mentioned in the 
report of the commission appointed by Ramesses X 
to examine the royal tombs at Thebes, which has 
come down to us in the papyrus known as the "Ab- 



232 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

bott papyrus." It was situated "north of the later 
temple of Amen-hotep of the Terrace," and had been 
injured by thieves at a point opposite the spot where 
the tablet stood; but the thieves had not been success- 
ful in penetrating to the sepulchral chamber. The 
mummy was found to be untouched. I contend that 
the Table of Karnak contains a genealogical list of 
the Theban rulers, from the beginning of the Sixth 
Dynasty down to the beginning of the Eighteenth 
Dynasty, and necessarily excludes all rulers not in the 
direct line of descent. Now, as Erpe-het Antefa suc- 
ceeds Mer-en-ra II, we can assume that the downfall 
of the Old Empire occurred near the beginning of 
the reign of Menthu-hotep I. The beginning of the 
reign of Antef Uah-anch, therefore, can be placed at 
circa 2910 B. C. The conquest of Abydos proves 
that he was a brave and warlike prince. As he 
reigned fifty years, we can place his death at circa 
2860 B. C. A funerary stela, now in the museum of 
Eeyden, is dated in the thirty-third year of User-ta- 
sen /, or about 2750 B. C, and informs us that the 
great-grandfather of the deceased was appointed to 
the office of scribe in the nome of Abydos in the reign 
of Horus Uah-anch, King of Upper and Lower Egypt, 
son of Ra, Antef — Sa-ra being inclosed in the same 
shield with the name Antef. This shows that this 
Antef exercised sovereignty over the nome of Aby- 
dos, and corroborates the prince's statement, that he 
had "captured Abydos and opened its prisons." 

We must interpret such phrases as ''th'rit rik en 
Bar Uah-anch'' with the aid of the German and Saxon 



History of Ancient Egypt 233 

languages, for the Egyptian language was Japhetic, 
not Semitic; compare Saxon, through; German, durch; 
and lyower German, rikj Danish, rig; German, reich. 

Now, as to the chronology deducible from the 
four generations represented by the ate/en atef en 
atei-a, "the father of the father of my father," of the 
inscription, who flourished as scribe in the nome of 
Abydos during the reign of Antef I. The four gener- 
ations in the peaceful ofhce of scribe average one hun- 
dred and thirty-three years, which reach back from 
2750 B. C. to 2883 B. C, or about the middle of his 
reign, showing that facts, however derived, always 
agree with the true chronology. 

In conclusion, it may not be out of place to say 
a word or two about Nuh-cheper-ra Antef and Neb- 
cheru-ra Menthuhotep, who have been, heretofore, 
assigned to the Eleventh Dynasty. In the Table of 
Karnak these kings immediately precede three kings 
who undoubtedly belong to the close of the Sixteenth 
Dynasty of Thebes, which was contemporaneous with 
the Seventeenth Dynasty of Hyksos kings. Stein- 
dorfif calls attention to a fact which indicates that 
these two kings did not precede but followed the 
Twelfth Dynasty. We have just seen that none of 
the kings of the Eleventh Dynasty had different titles 
as Horus and as Lord of Diadems; in fact, Usertasen 
II seems to have been the first to adopt different titles 
for each of these. Now the Horus-title of Nub- 
cheper-ra was Nofer-cheperu, while his title as Lord 
of Diadems was Hir-nest-f, "Upon his throne," which 
would seem to relegate him to the Sixteenth Dynasty, 



234 ^ Self-Verifying Chronological 

notwithstanding his name Antef. But it so happens 
that Neb-cheni-ra had the same title for both, to wit, 
Sam-taui, "'Uniter of the two Lands," which would 
seem to place him before the Twelfth Dynasty, and 
discredit the arrangement in the Table of Karnak. 
Fortunately, a small fragment of the Turin papyrus. 
No. 62,, which contains two names in succession, 
comes to our assistance in this perplexity. As repro- 
duced by Lepsius in his Book of Kings, it contains 
the names Neb-chervi-ra and Se-user-en-ra, the last of 
which was the throne-title of the Theban and Hyksos 
king, Chi-an. But even here there is a discrepancy 
between the papyrus and the Table of Karnak, which 
is hard to explain, as Nub-cheper-ra follows Neb- 
cheru-ra in the latter. 

The Theban kings of the Sixteenth Dynasty were 
tributary to the Hyksos kings of the Seventeenth Dy- 
nasty. Manetho grouped them together as joint 
lines, making the total (259+259) five hundred and 
eighteen years. The division of the kingdom seems 
to have been complete at the beginning of these 
dynasties, 2097 B. C. ; but rivalries, complications, 
and conflicts arose in the course of time. A spirit of 
freedom grew up in the south, coupled with the de- 
sire to drive the hated Hamites out of the Delta. 
This spirit induced the kings to assume the names 
of the illustrious princes of the Eleventh Dynasty, 
who had re-established the empire after its downfall, 
and given to Egypt the glorious dynasty of the 
Amenemhets and Usertasens. The names of Antef 
and Menthuhotep were calculated to arouse the slum- 



History of Ancient Egypt 235 

bering patriotism of the people, and prepare them for 
the impending conflict. We need not, therefore, be 
surprised to find the predecessors of Sekenenra bear- 
ing the names of Antef and Menthuhotep. The 
tombs of the Sixteenth Dynasty succeeded those of 
the Eleventh Dynasty at Thebes, and the architecture 
of the two was so much alike that Champollion and 
other early Egyptologists were led to believe that the 
one followed immediately after the other. It was 
simply a renaissance of national feeling, which was 
visible in architecture as well as science and literature. 
The Turin papyrus seems to have had but six 
kings in the Eleventh Dynasty. The sixteen kings 
in the Manethonian Lists may be taken from the six- 
teen years of Amenemes I, immediately following it. 

CHU-MER-NA-PTAH AND SEM-SU 
HAR-PA-CHRAT 

The reader has seen how the two above-named 
epoch-reigns, which are taken from the List of Era- 
tosthenes, elucidate, confirm, and verify the lists de- 
rived from the great work of Manetho. Strange as it 
may appear, we have recovered the entire twelve 
epoch-reigns of Manetho's first Sothiac cycle, and 
every one of these reigns sustains, and is sustained by, 
Manetho's chronological scheme, as unfolded in his 
general scheme, his dynastic totals, and his separate 
reigns. The fact that quite a number of these are 
derived from Eratosthenes, who pursued a different 
method from Manetho, demonstrates to a certainty 
that Manetho did not invent the system or divide the 



236 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

reigns to agree with it. Such a complete agreement 
of two rival systems all along the line, for a period 
of 1,460 years, is unparalleled in ancient history, and 
there is nothing to compare to it except the cele- 
brated Canon of Ptolemy, which was the work of one 
chronologist, and stands alone. 

Resuming the Sothiac list at the end of the Fifth 
Dynasty, or 3146 B. C, where we left ofif, we have, 
to the beginning of the Second Cycle, 2784 B. C, the 
following items : 

End of Fifth Dynasty, 3146 B. C. 

Tithoes, ... 30 

3116 B. C. 
Phiops I (Meri-ra), 53 

3063 B. C. 
Menthusuphis I, 7 

3056 B. C. 
Phiops II, as epoch-king "Chomanephthah," . 12 

3044 B. C. 
Phiops II, after epoch of Epiphi, 3044 B. C, . . 83 

2961 B. C. 
Menthusuphis II (i yr. i m.), i 

2960 B. C. 
Nitokris, 12 

End of Old Empire, and Birth of No-ah, . . . 2948 B. C. 
Seventh Dynasty, Memphite, 6 

2942 B. C. 
Eighth Dynasty, epoch-king " Sempsu Harpo- 

krates," 18 

Epoch of Mesore, 2924 B. C. 

Eighth Dynasty, after epoch (142-18), 124 

28^ B. C. 

Amenemes I, before Second Cycle, 16 

End of First Cycle, • • • • 2784 B. C. 



History of Ancient Egypt 237 

Manetho separated the first sixteen years of the 
reign of Amenemes I, and placed them in his first 
book and first cycle. The List of Eratosthenes shows 
upon its face that this great scientist originally en- 
tered these identical sixteen years as an epoch-reign 
under the title "Petethothis;" that is, Pa-ta-tahu-ti, 
"The Gift of Thoth," to distinguish it from the pre- 
ceding title Athothis. It was natural and convenient 
for the unknown arranger of the present list to con- 
found Pete-athyris and Petethothis, both of whom 
had sixteen years; and he accordingly substituted 
Pete-athyris for Petethothis at the head of the 
Twelfth Dynasty. 

I think I have sufificiently explained the epoch- 
titles "Kosmos Philephaistos" and "Herakles Harpo- 
krates," and their applicability to the months of 
Epiphi and Mesore, and I can merely add that a 
closer study of the inscriptions in the pyramids of 
Unas and others has satisfied me that all these terms, 
without exception, were not only in common use, 
but were very ancient at that time. 

THE GRAND TOTALS OF NINETY-SIX KINGS 

AND 2,121 YEARS OF MANETHO'S 

SECOND BOOK 

There were fifty-two kings belonging to the main 
line in Manetho's First Book, exclusive of Amen- 
emes I. The total of ninety-two kings for the First 
Book included the nineteen kings of the Tenth Dy- 
nasty of Heracleopolites, who reigned four hundred 



238 A Self-Verifying Chronological 

and eighty-five years from 2833 B. C. to 2348 B. C. 
The five kings of the Ninth Dynasty of Heracleopolis 
reigned one hundred and nine years from 2942 B. C. 
to 2833 B. C, when the dynasty was overthrown by 
the Thebans. A branch of this line estabhshed itself 
at Xois, or Sebennytus, in the heart of the Delta, and 
maintained itself there for four hundred and eighty- 
five years, and until it was overwhelmed and de- 
stroyed by the Hyksos Flood. Manetho allowed the 
Sothiac Era 2784 B. C. to divide his main line; but, 
having introduced the Tenth Dynasty of Heracle- 
opolites in his First Book, he carried the side line 
down to its close. It seems that he mentioned the 
Heracleopolite kings in his Second Book, where they 
appeared as the Fourteenth Dynasty of Xois and 
Sebennytus, reigning side by side with the Thirteenth 
Dynasty of Thebans for two hundred and forty-two 
years. 

The two hundred and forty-two years of the 
Thirteenth Dynasty and the two hundred and forty- 
two years of the Fourteenth Dynasty gave rise to a 
sub-total of four hundred and eighty-four years, which 
was almost equivalent to the four hundred and eighty- 
five years of the Tenth Dynasty. Now as the two 
hundred and forty-two years of the Fourteenth Dy- 
nasty, and its kings also, were already included in the 
totals of Manetho's First Book; that is, the ninety- 
two kings and 2,300 years; they were not again com- 
puted in the totals of his Second Book. Bearing this 
in mind, we find that Manetho had ninety-six kings 
in his Second Book, as follows : 



History of Ancient Egypt 



239 



From First Book, main line, . . 
Twelfth Dynasty, Diospolitan, . 
Thirteenth Dynasty, Diospolitan, 
Fifteenth Dynasty, Diospolitan, 
Sixteenth Dynasty, Theban, . . 
Seventeenth Dynasty, Hyksos, . 
Eighteenth Dynasty, Diospolitan, 
Nineteenth Dynasty, Diospolitan, 

Total, 



No. of Kings. 



16 
II 
32 

6 
16 
_7 
96 



Total. 
52 
60 
76 

43 



According to the list of Africanus, which is the 
most reliable (barring subsequent changes), there 
were ninety-six kings in Manetho's Second Book, in 
addition to the ninety- two kings of his First Book. 

Eusebius has only ninety-two kings, owing to the 
fact that he reduced the Eighteenth Dynasty to four- 
teen kings, and the Nineteenth Dynasty to five kings. 
By a strange freak of chance, the Thirteenth Dynasty 
now has sixty kings, the total including the eight 
kings of the Twelfth Dynasty; and the Fourteenth 
Dynasty now has seventy-six kings, the total includ- 
ing the sixteen kings of the Thirteenth Dynasty. 
Manetho, following the ancient registers, summed up 
at the end of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Dynas- 
ties; that is, at 2348 B. C, the date of the great 
^Aamu Flood. Down to this date there were seventy- 
six kings in the main line and thirty-nine kings in 
the side lines, or altogether one hundred and fifteen 
kings. After the Hyksos invasion he began a new 
computation of the kings, beginning with the Fif- 
teenth Dynasty of Thebans. Thus there was no total 
at the end of this dynasty which the redactors of the 
lists could mistake for the actual number belonging 



240 A Self-Verifying Chronological 

to the same. Originally, the P^ifteenth Dynasty had 
eleven kings, the Sixteenth Dynasty thirty-two kings; 
but the Seventeenth Dynasty, instead of the six kings 
actually assigned to it, received the total of forty- 
three kings, which appeared at the end of the Six- 
teenth Dynasty. It would be interesting to know 
whether this systematic substitution of running totals 
for the acutal numbers was the result of carelessness, 
or whether it was intentionally done to confuse, mys- 
tify, and discredit the lists. 

It is certain that the otherwise truthful list of 
Africanus has been changed in several respects, in 
order to make it agree with certain false notions pub- 
lished by Josephus. For example, the Hyksos Dy- 
nasty, originally the Seventeenth, has been substi- 
tuted for the Fifteenth, which was originally Dios- 
politan. The unavoidable effect of this arbitrary 
substitution was to completely disarrange and confuse 
the Fifteenth, Sixteenth, and Seventeenth Dynasties. 
But as these changes affected the number of years 
as well as the number of kings, we will take up the 
total of 2,121 years before examining them in detail. 

I contend that Manetho's original total for his Sec- 
ond Book was only 1,721 years, made up as follows: 

Twelfth Dynasty, Diospolitan, after 2784 B. C, . 194 years 

Thirteenth Dynasty, Diospolitan, 242 " 

Fifteenth Dynasty, Diospolitan, 251 " 

Sixteenth Dynasty, Theban, 260 " 

Seventeenth Dynasty, Hyksos, 260 " 

Eighteenth Dynasty, Diospolitan, including 

thirteen years of Chebros, 276 " 

Nineteenth Dynasty, Diospolitan, 23S " 

Total, 1,721 " 



History of Ancient Egypt 241 

The Fourteenth Dynasty of Xois is omitted in the 
above computation for the reason just given, to v^it: 
that its tv^o hundred and forty-tv^o years are included 
in the 2,300 years of the First Book. According to 
Africanus and both versions of Eusebius, hov^ever, 
there were 2,121 years in Manetho's Second Book. 
How can this apparent discrepancy be explained? 

Manetho computed the entire period of Theban 
supremacy, from the accession of Amenemes I, 2800 
B. C, to the Hyksos Invasion, 2348 B. C, at four 
hundred and fifty-three years, as follows: 

Twelfth Dynasty ( 1 64- 194=), 210 years 

Thirteenth Dynasty, 242 ** 

Total 453 " 

This total now appears as the total of the Thir- 
teenth Dynasty. 

Again, Manetho had an ''Egyptian total" of four 
hundred and eighty-four years for the combined Thir- 
teenth and Fourteenth Dynasties. It seems strange 
to us that two dynasties, reigning side by side for two 
hundred and forty-two years, should be summed up 
as (242+242) four hundred and eighty-four years; 
but this was done for mathematical purposes only; 
that is, to serve as a check upon the separate numbers, 
etc. This total now appears as the total of the Four- 
teenth Dynasty. Manetho also had an ''Egyptian 
total" of five hundred and eighteen or five hundred 
and twenty years for the combined Sixteenth and 
Seventeenth Dynasties, which were contemporary. 
After the Hyksos had been placed in the Fifteenth 
16 



242 A Self-Verifying Chronological 

Dynasty this total was given to the Sixteenth Dy- 
nasty, and the two hundred and fifty-one years of the 
Fifteenth Dynasty were reduced to one hundred and 
fifty-one, and given to the Seventeenth Dynasty. The 
following numbers foot up 2,121 : 

Twelfth Dynasty, original number, 194 years 

Thirteenth and Fourteenth Dynasties, total, . 484 

Fifteenth Dynasty, as changed, 260 

Sixteenth Dynasty, as changed, 518 

Seventeenth Dynasty, as changed, 151 

Eighteenth Dynasty, including thirteen years 

of Chebros, 276 

Nineteenth Dynasty, 238 

Total, 2,121 

Manetho's main line, Diospolitan and Theban, was 
made up as follows : 

Twelfth Dynasty, Diospolitan, 194 years 

Thirteenth Dynasty, Diospolitan, 242 " 

Fifteenth Dynasty, Diospolitan, 251 *' 

Sixteenth Dynasty, Thebaid, 260 " 

Kpoch-reign of Chebros, « . . . , 13 " 

Eighteenth Dynasty, Diospolitan, 263 ** 

Nineteenth Dynasty, Diospolitan, 238 " 

Total, 1,461 " 

These numbers can be accepted as accurate; they 
fill out the cycle of 1,460 fixed years between the eras 
2784 B. C. and 1324 B. C, and are supported by the 
epochs and epoch-reigns. 

The early Christian chronographers were simple 
enough to believe that the serpent-worshiping Hyk- 
sos were the Hebrews, and that their forcible expul- 



History of Ancient Egypt 243 

sion from Egypt by Chebros, or Amosis, in the year 
1837 B. C, was, in fact, the peaceable exodus of the 
Hebrews, which took place in the year 1491 B. C. 
But as their great authority (Josephus) had fixed the 
Exodus at 1648 B. C, they attempted to change the 
Manethonian Lists so as to bring the expulsion of 
the Hyksos down from 1837 B. C. to 1648 B. C, and 
thereby blotted out one hundred and eighty-nine 
years of history. Now let us see how this change was 
effected. In the Twentieth Dynasty there was a king 
called Phuoro or Nile. This king was reigning in 
Egypt when Troy was captured. Eratosthenes fixed 
the Fall of Troy at 1181 B. C, and King Nile, accord- 
ing to Manetho, reigned from 1207 B. C. to 11 68 
B. C. The last reign of the Nineteenth Dynasty was 
Tho-uris; that is, Ta-ur-et, with seven years. These 
seven years extended from 1331 B. C. to 1324 B. C, 
the celebrated era of Menophres. It so happened 
that Tho-uris and Phuoro looked very much alike 
in Greek, and one of these early chronographers con- 
ceived the design of confounding the two. Phuoro 
was disposed of by removing the seven kings of the 
Twentieth Dynasty to the pseudo-Sothis List; where 
they were placed immediately before the Hyksos 
kings, and by transferring the remark attached to the 
reign of Phuoro to Tho-uris, which title was changed 
to Thuoris, making it appear that Thuoris was called 
Polybus by Homer, and that Troy was captured dur- 
ing his short reign of seven years. This necessarily 
brought Thuoris down from 1331 B. C. to 1181 B. C, 
and gave the forger one hundred and fifty of the re- 



244 ^ Self-Verifying Chronological 

quired one hundred and eighty-nine years. In con- 
sequence of this unprecedented rape, the Twentieth 
Dynasty is now a perfect blank in all the Hsts. Al- 
though the list of Africanus has been changed to con- 
form to these false dates, there is abundant evidence 
that the changes were not made by him. Observe 
how the numbers were made to fit into the scheme: 

Assumed date of Expulsion, 1648 B. C. 

Bighteenth Dynasty, true number, 263 

1385 B. C. 
Nineteenth Dynasty, as changed from 238, . . . 204 

Fall of Troy, 1181 B. C. 

It is significant that the twenty-five years of 
Amosis after the epoch 1824 B. C, and the false one 
hundred and fifty-one years of the Seventeenth Dy- 
nasty, carry us back to that epoch. 

The pseudo-Sothis List places Menes, or Mes- 
traim (?), ''the first king," at 2724 B. C, which was 
the assumed date of the "Dispersion," five hundred 
and thirty-four years after the Flood. Thuoris, the 
fifty-ninth king in the false list, is placed at 1181 
B. C, and I infer from this that the above changes 
in the list of Africanus were made by the author of the 
so-called pseudo-Sothis List. 

Eusebius noticed that something was wrong, and 
made an attempt to correct the errors; but did not 
succeed. We know from his great Chronicon that 
he placed the beginning of his Eighteenth Dynasty 
at 1723 B. C, which was one hundred and one years 
after the actual date; but he was completely deceived 



History of Ancient Egypt 245 

by the remark attached to the reign of Thuoris, and, 
therefore, left him at 1181 B. C. 

Beginning of Eighteenth Dynasty, 1723 B. C. 

Eighteenth Dynasty, 348 

1375 B.C. 
Nineteenth Dynasty, 194 

Fall of Troy, , 1181 B. C. 

When we come to Manetho's Third Book we shall 
see how the numbers of the Twentieth, Twenty-first, 
Twenty-second, Twenty-third, Twenty-fourth, and 
Twenty-fifth Dynasties were reduced so as to make 
them foot up six hundred and fifty-six years, the 
exact number required to fill out the interval between 
1 181 B. C. and 525 B. C, the well-known beginning 
point of the Persian Dynasty — the true number being 
seven hundred and ninety-nine years. In the scheme 
of Eusebius, it is also significant that the one hundred 
and three years of his false Seventeenth Dynasty ap- 
proximately fill out the interval between the epoch 
1824 B. C. and 1723 B. C. In order to understand 
the numbers of Eusebius, we must go back to the 
artificial list called the "Old Chronicle," from which 
he seems to have derived them. The Second Cycle 
was filled out in the Old Chronicle, as follows: 

Twelfth Dynasty, from Eusebius, 182 years 

Fifteenth Dynasty, 443 " 

Sixteenth Dynasty, 190 " 

Seventeenth Dynasty, 103 " 

Eighteenth Dynasty, 348 " 

Nineteenth Dynasty, 194 " 

Total, 1,460 " 



246 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

It is remarkable how long the learned world has 
been deceived by these numbers, each of which is 
evidently false and artificial. The men who were un- 
scrupulous enough to devise and successfully carry 
out such a scheme, did not hesitate to lay their hands 
upon other equally venerable documents. 

The List of Africanus still contains upon its face 
evidences of the violent changes referred to. The 
Sixteenth D3masty (originally Theban) is now headed 
''Thirty-two Other Shepherd-kings;" but the number 
of kings (thirty-two) and the final total (five hundred 
and eighteen) do not belong to the Hyksos. The 
Seventeenth Dynasty is now headed "Forty-three 
Other Shepherd-kings and Forty-three Thebaid, 
Diospolitan Kings." These forty-three kings are the 
eleven Diospolitan kings of the Fifteenth Dynasty, 
and the thirty-two local kings of the Thebais of the 
Sixteenth Dynasty, who ruled contemporaneously 
with the six Hyksos kings of the Seventeenth Dy- 
nasty. The thirteen years of Amosis between 1837 
B. C, or the Expulsion of the Hyksos, and the great 
epoch of Pachons, 1824 B. C, were given to Chebros, 
a title which will be explained in its proper place ; but 
as far back as Josephus we find this reign inserted 
after the twenty-five years and four months of Amosis, 
and Africanus seems to have placed the beginning of 
the Eighteenth Dynasty at the end of his reign, or 
about 1798 B. C, which accounts for his 1,020 years 
to the first Olympiad (776 B. C). 

After the end of Manetho's Second Book had been 



History of Ancient Egypt 247 

fixed at 1 181 B. C. there were just 1,603 years in a 
direct line from the era 2784 B. C. to this date, and 
the extra five hundred and eighteen years supposed 
to be due to the forty-three (?) Shepherd-kings made 
the grand total 2,121 years. Could this be owing to 
chance alone? 

TABLE OF TWELFTH DYNASTY 

ACCORDING TO BRUGSCH 

1. Amenemes I, alone, 20 years 

Amenemes I, with Usertasen I, lo " 

2. Usertasen I, alone, 32 " 

Usertasen I, with Amenemes II, , . 3 " 

3. Amenemes II, alone, 29 " 

Amenemes II, with Usertasen II, 6 " 

4. Usertasen II, alone, 13 " 

5. Usertasen III, 26 " 

6. Amenemes III, 42 " 

7. Amenemes IV, 9 " 

8. Skemiophris, , . 4 " 

Total, 194 " 

CORRECT TABI,E 

I. Amenemes I, before cycle, 2784 B. C, . . 16 years 
Amenemes I, after cycle, 2784 B. C, . . 13 years "I 



2. Usertasen I, alone, 33 

Usertasen I, with Amenemes II, 3 

3. Amenemes II, alone, 29 

Amenemes II, with Usertasen II, ... . 6 

4. Usertasen II, alone, 17 

5. Usertasen III, 38 

6. Amenemes III, 42 

7. Amenemes IV, 9 

8. Sebku-no/eru, 4 

Total, 194 



248 A Self-Verifying Chronological 

TWELFTH DYNASTY OF EIGHT THEBAN KINGS 

The accession of the Twelfth Dynasty, after the 
last king of the Eleventh Dynasty had extended his 
authority over I^ower Egypt, inaugurated one of the 
most brilliant periods of Egyptian history, commonly 
known as the Middle Empire. Monuments, which 
are rare under the Eleventh Dynasty, except in Upper 
Egypt, become plentiful in all parts of the land, from 
Elephantine in the south to the marshes of the north. 
The lists again give the names of the kings and their 
reigns, although the present lists are badly corrupted. 

The first sixteen years of the first king, Amen- 
emes I, belong to Manetho's first Sothiac Cycle; and 
the Twelfth Dynasty, as now constituted, begins at 
the era 2784 B. C; consequently the last thirteen 
years only of the reign of Amenemes I belong here. 
As this king reigned jointly with his son, Usertasen I, 
during the last ten years of his reign, Manetho, in his 
chronological list, assigned the entire thirteen years 
to Usertasen I, giving him forty-six years altogether. 
These forty-six years, however, do not include the 
joint-reign of Usertasen I and his son, Amenemes II, 
which Manetho gave to the latter. 

The list ascribed to Eratosthenes closes with the 
Twelfth Dynasty, at the head of which we now find 
"Peteathyres" with an epoch-reign of sixteen years. 
Here Peteathyres was substituted for *Tetethothis" 
(Pa-ta-thoth), "The Gift of Thoth," because each had 
an epoch-reign of sixteen years, and the author of the 
present artificial list, in which Menes, **the first king," 



History of Ancient Egypt 249 

was placed at 2724 B. C, wanted to get rid of the 
troublesome period of 1,520 years between 4244 B. C. 
and 2724 B. C. 

The reigns of Usertasen II and Usertasen III have 
been changed in Manetho's lists, owing, perhaps, to 
a late attempt to identify them with Sesostris; but we 
are able to now restore them with the greatest accu- 
racy from the list of Eratosthenes. These kings 
reigned jointly, like their predecessors, for many 
years, for which reason Eratosthenes added the two 
reigns together. No. 34 of his list now reads, ''Ses- 
tosichermes 'Erakles Krataios," fifty-five years. It 
seems almost incredible that a name could have been 
mangled to this extent by intelligent writers. In the 
first place, the name was "Usertosis" (comp. Toser- 
tosis and t/^^rcheres). In the second place, there was 
no translation of the name, for it had just appeared in 
the list. In the third place, the explanatory remark 
was "Ermes e 'Erackles Krataios," which constitutes 
one of the most gratifying proofs of the Sothiac sys- 
tem to be found in the lists. As we shall see, this 
reign of fifty-five years, beginning in the Sothiac 
month of Thoth, extended over into the succeeding 
month of Paophi. Bearing in mind that Pharaoh 
claimed to rule over the world like Ra, and that Ra 
passed through all the stages of life, from birth and 
infancy to old age and death, it will be easy to under- 
stand how Usertosis reigned first as Hermes, or 
Thoth, and afterwards as Herakles, or Pa-api, whose 
symbol was the reclining sphinx. But a greater sur- 
prise still awaits us. When Eratosthenes described 



250 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

the first nineteen years of the reign of Usertasen III 
as "Herakles Krataios," he followed the symbols used 
in the Old Empire; but when he came to the epoch- 
reign itself, he substituted the symbol used in the 
New Empire. No. 2)7 of his list is "Phuoro," trans- 
lated "Nile," with a reign of nineteen years. Paophi 
and Pa-iar (Phuoro) are both names of the Nile, and 
in this instance the meaning is beyond dispute. Of 
course, the epoch-reign of Usertasen III extends from 
the beginning of his reign to the epoch of Paophi, 
2664 B. C, so that we are enabled to fix the dates 
accurately, and also restore the separate reigns, which 
are lost. The following table will show how it can 
be done : 

Beginning of era, 2784 B. C. 

Usertosis I, including thirteen years of Amen- 

emes I, . 46 

2738 B. C. 
Amenemes II, 38 

2700 B. C. 
Usertosis II, 17 

3683 B. C. 
Usertosis III, as epoch king Phuoro, 19 

Epoch of Paophi •••... 3664 B. C. 

Usertosis III, after epoch, 19 

3645 B. C. 
Amenemes III, 42 

3603 B. C. 
Amenemes IV, 9 

3594 B. C. 
Sebek-no/eru, 4 

3590 B. C. 



Hi ST OR Y OF Ancient Eg ypt 251 

We have used Manetho's numbers, fitted to the 
era, for the reigns of Usertasen I and Amenemes II, 
to wit, forty-six and thirty-eight, and yet the agree- 
ment with the numbers derived from Eratosthenes is 
perfect. We have seen that he estimated the com- 
bined reigns of Usertasen II and Usertasen III at 
fifty-five years, and the seventeen years of the former 
and thirty-eight years of the latter give us this exact 
sum. 

The forty-eight years of the supposed Sesostris, 
in Manetho's lists, were the thirty-eight years of User- 
tasen III, afterwards increased to forty-eight years, 
when Usertasen II disappeared from the lists. 

The duration of the dynasty, regardless of its divis- 
ion by the era 2784 B. C, was two hundred and ten 
years. A fragment of the Turin papyrus, supposed 
to belong to this dynasty, shows a total of two hun- 
dred and thirteen years, one month, and seventeen 
days, which is slightly in excess of the above total; 
but it may include a joint-reign, excluded by Man- 
etho, or three years of Amenemes I, before he became 
the recognized Pharaoh of the whole land, Manetho 
having given one hundred and forty-two years to the 
Eighth Dynasty of Memphis, which brought his 
chronology down to 2800 B. C. 

The history of this dynasty is so well known, and 
has been so fully described from the monuments by 
Brugsch, Maspero, and Petrie, that it would be out- 
side the scope of this work to repeat it here, our 
object being to shed light upon the dark passages of 
ancient Egyptian history and chronology. 



252 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

During the last fifty or sixty years of the Sixth 
Dynasty, the power of the feudal lords was greatly 
increased, and during the period of wars and anarchy 
between 2948 B. C. and 2801 B. C. it reached its 
fullest development. The valley of the Nile fairly 
bristled with the castles of these powerful barons. 
We have just seen how one of the kings of the Ninth 
Dynasty of Heracleopolis was compelled to seek pro- 
tection at the hands of one of these feudal lords, who 
had become so powerful that he was able to raise 
and equip an army and fleet of sufficient strength to 
quell the rebellion against the king, and replace him 
on his throne at Heracleopolis. One of the chief 
difficulties the princes of the Eleventh Dynasty— the 
just and righteous Antefs and Menthuhoteps — had 
to encounter in their efforts to re-establish the em- 
pire, was the opposition and hereditary rights and 
privileges of these feudal lords. Writing of the ac- 
cession of Amen-m-het /, Maspero says, "Such a state 
of affairs could only be reformed by revolution," and 
seems to think it doubtful whether this king usurped 
the crown or inherited it legitimately. There is no 
reason to doubt that the Twelfth Dynasty was simply 
a continuation of the Eleventh Dynasty. One of my 
initial discoveries, which was of great service to me 
in ferreting out the contemporary dynasties, was that 
Manetho, with one exception, gave the names and 
reigns of the kings of the dynasties which ruled over 
the entire land; but gave the general heading and 
total duration only of the dynasties which ruled over 
parts of Egypt only. When the Eighth Dynasty of 



History of Ancient Egypt 253 

Memphis came to an end, and Amenemes I became a 
true Pharaoh, ruHng over the entire land, a new 
dynasty began according to Egyptian notions, and 
this is what is meant by Manetho's Twelfth Dynasty. 
Of course, Amenemes I arose like Turn himself, re- 
storing what he found in ruins, re-establishing the 
boundaries of the nomes, expelling or removing 
troublesome, obstreperous, or rebellious lords, and 
appointing loyal subjects in their places, and generally 
reorganizing the empire on a firm and stable basis. 
In his instructions to his son, Usertasen, he admon- 
ishes him to live in harmony with his subjects, and 
not to rely solely on the rich and noble — good counsel 
culled from the sad experience of former kings. 

Besides the throne-title, Se-hotep-ah-ra, already 
mentioned, this king assumed the remarkable title, 
Nem-mestii, *'Re-born." 

fetrie, who renders this title "renewing births," 
supposes that it was a motto symbolizing the re- 
institution of the living organization of everything in 
the country; but it has a deeper and more significant 
meaning. As the 'living Horus," the vicegerent of 
Ra on earth, this king was "re-born" at the winter 
solstice of the Sothiac year 2784 B. C, and the title 
expresses this new birth as Har-pa-krat as plainly as 
words can express anything. As the centuries rolled 
by, Seti I, the great epoch-king Osiropis of Epiphi, 
1584 B. C, assumed this title Nem-mestu to mark his 
second birth into the new Sothiac month, thereby 
attaching to this subordinate event the same impor- 
tance that Amenemes I did to the great era itself. 



254 ^ Self- Verifying Chronological 

It has been the fashion to accuse Manetho of 
stupidly computing the joint-reigns to both kings, 
and thereby swelling his chronological numbers, so 
that no reliance could be placed in them. This dy- 
nasty, which abounded in joint-reigns, was supposed 
to furnish indisputable evidence to sustain this charge; 
but it proves the exact reverse of what it was expected 
to prove; and I trust that this little work will forever 
silence the false clamor. 

This dynasty, although Theban, was imperial, and 
had its chief residence at the old capital, Memphis, 
and built its tombs and pyramids in that vicinity; but 
Thebes seems to have been a second capital of the 
empire, as it certainly was the capital of the South. 
We shall see that the succeeding Thirteenth Dynasty, 
which is also termed Theban in the Manethonian list, 
had its chief capital at Memphis, as shown by the 
1,797 years of the Memphite kings, which continue 
on down to the end of the Fifteenth Dynasty, the 
Fourteenth Dynasty of Xois being contemporary with 
the Thirteenth. In proof of the assertion that the 
Table of Karnak was a genealogical list of the Theban 
kings down to the Eighteenth Dynasty, I refer to this 
dynasty, where one of the kings was omitted. We 
find: i. Amenemes I; 2. Usertosis I; 3. Amenemes 
II; 4. Destroyed; 5. Destroyed; 6. Amenemes IV; 
7. Seb-ku-noferu-ra. We know that Usertosis II, 
Usertosis III, and Amenemes III, all three distin- 
guished kings with long reigns, came between Amen- 
emes II and Amenemes TV; hence it is evident that 
one of these has been omitted in the Table of Karnak. 



History of Ancient Egypt 255 

As Amenemes III reigned forty-two years after the 
long reign of Usertosis III, we are forced to assume 
that the two successive Usertasens were brothers, 
and that one of them was not in the direct Hne of 
descent. In the Thirteenth Dynasty, where the 
reigns were comparatively short, we find as many as 
three or four omitted at a time. 

The last name, Seh-ku-nofer-u-ra, suggests a diffi- 
culty which is hard to explain, for the reason that the 
last ruler in Manetho's hst, Skemiophris, is termed 
the "sister" of Amenemes IV. But we must not for- 
get that Manetho always gives the proper name, while 
the Table of Karnak, after the Eleventh Dynasty, in- 
variably gives the throne-title. Amenemes IV and 
his sister devoted themselves, with great energy, to 
the completion of the Lyabyrinth in the Fayum, the 
most colossal building ever erected in Egypt. Its 
ruins show that it was one thousand feet long by eight 
hundred feet wide; and it is probable that Sebek- 
noferu-ra, a younger son of Mares, was appointed 
ruler of Thebes, and that when the kingdom was 
divided, twelve years after Mares' death, he dated his 
regnal years, as Thehan king, from that time. 

INTKRVAIy BETWEEN THE TWELFTH AND 
EIGHTEENTH DYNASTIES 

The Twelfth Dynasty came to a close, as we have 
just seen, about 2590 B. C. The Thirteenth and 
Fourteenth Dynasties begin at this date, and run side 
by side, for two hundred and forty-two years, to the 
Hyksos Invasion, 2348 B. C. The Hyksos were ex- 
pelled from Egypt five hundred and eleven years after 



256 A Self-Verifying Chronological 

the invasion; that is, 1837 B- ^- ^^he entire period, 
therefore, from the Twelfth Dynasty to the Hyksos 
Expulsion, covers exactly seven hundred and fifty- 
three years. This period was filled out as follows: 

Close of the Twelfth Dynasty, 2590 B. C. 

Thirteenth Dynasty, Diospolitan, and Four- 
teenth Dynasty, Xoite, . 242 

Hamite Flood, 2348 B. C. 

Fifteenth Dynasty, Diospolitan, 251 

2097 B. C. 
Sixteenth Dynasty, Thebaid, and Seventeenth 

Dynasty, Hyksos, 260 

Hyksos Expulsion, 1837 B. C. 

Aahmes, as Chebros, 13 

Epoch of Pachons, 1824 B. C. 

Thus it will be seen that the Hyksos Invasion took 
place two hundred and forty-two years after the end 
of the Twelfth Dynasty; not eighty-seven years, as 
supposed by Bunsen, or nine hundred and thirty- 
seven years, as supposed by Petrie. 

Manetho's summation at the end of the Thir- 
teenth and Fourteenth Dynasties gave him : 

1. A total of seventy-six kings, excluding the 
Fourteenth Dynasty (which did not belong to the 
main Hne), to wit, 52+8-^16=76. 

2. A total of four hundred and fifty-three years for 
the Diospolitan line, made up as follows : 

Amenemes I, before 2784 B. C, 16 years 

Twelfth Dynasty, after 2784 B. C, 194 " 

Thirteenth Dynasty, to Hyksos Invasion, . . . 242 '* 

Total 453 " 



History of Ancient Egypt 257 

The one hundred and forty-eight years of the 
Eleventh Dynasty could not be included in this total, 
because the one hundred and forty-eight years of the 
Seventh and Eighth Dynasties, covering the same 
period, had been computed in the main line. 

3. An ''Egyptian total" of four hundred and 
eighty-four years, being the sum of the two hundred 
and forty-two years of the Thirteenth Dynasty and 
the two hundred and forty-two years of the Four- 
teenth Dynasty. 

In the present lists these grand-totals, by mistake, 
appear as the totals of separate dynasties. We now 
find: 

Thirteenth Dynasty of sixty Diospolitan Icings, who 

reigned 453 years. 
Fourteenth Dynasty of seventy-six Xoite kings, who 

reigned 484 years. 

These errors have been the innocent cause 
of much confusion; for instance, Petrie, the latest 
writer on the subject, makes an earnest effort to find 
one hundred and thirty-six kings, where there were 
actually but sixteen, and account for nine hundred 
and thirty-seven years, where there were actually but 
two hundred and forty-two; but, as they have pre- 
served intact to this day these invaluable grand-totals, 
science is indebted to them for evidence of the best 
possible character in a period where it was badly 
needed. 

After the Hyksos Invasion, a native dynasty of 
eleven kings, called ''Diospolitan," reigned two hun- 
dred and fifty-one years. It will be remembered that, 
17 



258 A Self-Verifying Chronological 

after his "ten Thinite kings," who reigned from 4244 
B. C. to 3894 B. C, Manetho had (seventy-seven) 
"Memphite kings," v^ho reigned 1,797 years; that is, 
from 3894 B. C. to 2097 B. C. The sum given to the 
"Memphite kings" includes the two hundred and 
forty-two years of the Thirteenth Dynasty and the 
two hundred and fifty-one years of the Fifteenth Dy- 
nasty; hence I confidently assume that both of these 
dynasties held Memphis, the ancient capital. It is 
true that this fact can not be harmonized with certain 
popular theories regarding the condition of Egypt 
during the first two hundred and fifty-one years of 
Hyksos suzerainty; but theories must always yield to 
facts. 

After the Fifteenth Dynasty had governed Egypt 
two hundred and fifty-one years in the name of the 
^Aamu kings, the great "kings of kings" in distant 
Elam, an 'Aamu dynasty was established in Egypt, 
the kings of which reigned over Egypt as Pharaohs, 
with their capital at Memphis. The Sixteenth Dy- 
nasty of native kings, or "hyks," was restricted to the 
Thebaid, and was tributary to the Hyksos Pharaohs. 
Thus the Hyksos-kings of the Seventeenth Dynasty 
and the Theban kings of the Sixteenth Dynasty 
reigned contemporaneously for two hundred and fifty- 
nine years and ten months, from 2097 B. C. to 1837 
B. C, when the foreign intruders were driven out of 
Egypt. 

Manetho called the Sixteenth Dynasty "Thebaid," 
to distinguish it from the Thirteenth and Fifteenth 
Dynasties, which he called "Diospolitan/' The head- 



History of Ancient Egypt 259 

ing of the Seventeenth Dynasty, in the Hst of Afri- 
canus, which now reads, "Forty-three other Shep- 
herd-kings and Forty-three Theban DiospoHtan- 
kings (followed by "together the Shepherds and the 
Thebans reigned one hundred and fifty-one [five hun- 
dred and eighteen] years,") is a blending of former 
totals, influenced by the fact that the dynasty was 
originally Hyksos. 

It is now clear that Manetho had: 

1. Sixteenth Dynasty of thirty-two Thebaid kings, 
reigned two hundred and fifty-nine years and ten 
months. 

2. Total of Theban and Diospolitan kings, forty- 
three. 

3. Seventeenth Dynasty of six Hyksos kings, 
reigned two hundred and fifty-nine years and ten 
months. 

4. Together the Shepherds (Hyksos) and Thebans 
reigned five hundred and eighteen years. 

Now, bearing in mind that the Hyksos Dynasty 
was substituted for the Fifteenth Dynasty, which was 
DiospoHtan, in order to conform to the supposed ar- 
rangement of Josephus, we need not be surprised to 
find some trace of it in the next following dynasty. 
The Sixteenth Dynasty, which was originally "thirty- 
two Thebaid kings," was changed so as to read: 
"Thirty-two other Shepherd-kings, reigned five hun- 
dred and eighteen ( !) years." There was no founda- 
tion whatever, in my opinion, for ''other Shepherd- 
kings," because we know positively that the great 
Hyksos Dynasty, composed of Saites, Paian, Apophis, 



26o A Self- Verifying Chronological 

Sethos, lannus, etc., immediately preceded the Eigh- 
teenth Dynasty, and that these were the ''Urst kings'' 
among them. In other words, as the six kings of 
the Seventeenth Dynasty were the first Hyksos kings, 
there could have been none before them, and, as the 
thirty-six years and seven months of Apophis II, the 
last king of this dynasty, extend down to 1837 ^- ^"> 
the date of the Hyksos Expulsion, there were none 
after them. 

The only occasion for "other Shepherd-kings" ap- 
pears in Manetho's general chronological scheme, 
where the 1,797 years of the "Memphite kings" are 
followed by the 1,810 years of his ''other kings." 
The joint dynasties. Sixteenth Theban and Seven- 
teenth Hyksos, headed the column of these "other 
kings," and, as the forger of the Africanian I^ists 
needed "other" Hyksos kings to fill out the blank of 
two hundred and fifty-one years left by transferring 
the Hyksos kings to the Fifteenth Dynasty, he simply 
changed ''other kings" to ''other Shepherd-kings." 

In conclusion, we can not refrain from adding that 
modern Egyptologists, since Bunsen and Eepsius, fail 
to appreciate the importance of the Manethonian 
Lists, and even endeavor, by insinuation or misrepre- 
sentation, to discredit and belittle them. They have 
been, and always will be (unless some equally reliable 
history may yet come to light), the chief corner-stone 
of modern Egyptology. 

The perplexities by which modern Egyptologists 
found themselves surrounded when they ventured 



History of Ancient Egypt 261 

upon this period of Egyptian history and chronology, 
without the guiding hand of Manetho, are summed up 
by Brugsch, in these hues : 

"Fragments and patchwork wherever we look. 
The Table of Kings of Abydos passes with a sudden 
leap over this wide chasm. The traditions of the an- 
cients, derived from the historical data in the work 
of Manetho, serve up to us error and confusion, in- 
stead of truth and clearness. Fate has thus done its 
worst to place the greatest difficulties in the w^ay of 
the solution of this question, and the hard task is laid 
on human sagacity of collecting the slight sparks, in 
order to kindle a light which may illumine the dark- 
ness of five hundred years. With what active zeal has 
science endeavored to fill up the huge gaps! How 
has she sought for a firm point which might serve her 
as a fulcrum! All, however, has been in vain, and 
only the hope remains that we may at length some 
day gain the solution of the riddle from hidden, and 
as yet undiscovered, memorials." 

The solution of the riddle, however, did not de- 
pend on "hidden and undiscovered memorials;" but 
was contained in the "historical data" — truly scanty 
enough — derived from the work of Manetho. 

The wide chasm supposed to exist between the 
Sixth and Twelfth Dynasties shrank upon examina- 
tion from seven hundred and fifty to one hundred and 
forty-eight years. But the gap between the Twelfth 
and Eighteenth Dynasties, on the contrary, widens 
from ^^^ hundred to seven hundred and fifty-three 
years. Firm points, astronomically fixed, to serve 



262 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

as fulcrums, are by no means wanting. Among the 
most important, we may mention the following : 

1. The great Sothiac Era 2784 B. C, in conjunc- 
tion with the epoch-reigns of Amenemes I and User- 
tasen III. 

2. The six hundred years from the birth of Noah, 
2948 B. C, to the 'Aamu Flood, 2348 B. C. 

3. The four hundred and fifty-three years from the 
beginning of the Twelfth Dynasty, 2801 B. C, to the 
Hyksos Invasion, 2348 B. C. 

4. The four hundred and eighty-four years of the 
combined Thirteenth and Fourteenth Dynasties 
(242+242=484). 

5. The 1,797 years of the "Memphite kings," be- 
ginning 3894 B. C. and ending 2097 B. C, at the 
close of the Fifteenth, and beginning of the Sixteenth 
and Hyksos Dynasties. 

6. The two hundred and fifty-one years of the 
Fifteenth Dynasty (Diospolitan), reaching from 2348 
B. C. to 2097 B. C. 

7. The exact coincidence of the epoch-reigns of 
Pa-ian and Set-nubti (Sethos) of the Hyksos Dynasty, 
when we place the beginning of this dynasty at 2097 
B. C. 

8. The exact agreement of the epoch-reign of 
Aahmes, before the epoch 1824 B. C, with the date of 
the Hyksos Expulsion, 1837 B. C, to wit, the thirteen 
years of "Chebros." 

9. The five hundred and eleven years of the Hyk- 
sos domination in Egvpt, from 2348 B. C. to 1837 
B. C. 



History of Ancient Egypt 263 

10. The four hundred years from the Era of Set- 
nubti (Sethos), the fourth Hyksos king, 1944 B. C, 
to the eighteenth year of Ramesses II Miamun, 1544 
B. C. 

THE EXTRACTS OF BARBARUS SCAIylGERI FROM 
AFRICANUS. (Thesaur. TKMpp. T. II, p. 74.) 

I. Mineus et pronepotes ipsius septem regnav- 

erunt annos, 253 

II. Regnaverunt et aliorum octo annos, 302 

III. Necherocheus et aliorum octo annos, .... 214 

IV. Similiter aliorum septemdecim annos, ... 214 
V. Similiter aliorum viginti unus annos, .... 258 

VI. Othoi et aliorum septem annos, 203 

VII. (Wanting), 

VIII. Similiter et aliorum quatuordecim annos, . . 142 

IX. Similiter et aliorum viginti annos, 409 

XII. Similiter et aliorum septem annos, 204 

Potestas Diospolitanorum annos, 9 

Potestas Bubastinorum annos, 153 (453) 

Potestas Tanitorum annos, 184 (484) 

Potestas Sebennitarum annos, 224 (242) 

Potestas Memphitarum annos, 318 (518) 

Potestas Iliopolitarum annos, 221 (251) 

Potestas Ermupolitorum annos, 260 (260) 

We have inserted the above extracts from Afri- 
canus after the Twelfth Dynasty, instead of at the 
head of Manetho's First Book, because they throw a 
welcome ray of light upon the period intervening 
between the Twelfth Dynasty and the Hyksos In- 
vasion. It seems that Manetho, following the ancient 
registers, summed up at the end of the Old Empire 
and again at the end of the Middle Empire. 

Thus we have seen that the sum 453, now out of 
place, belongs to the "Potestas Diospolitanorum," 
and the sum 484, now also out of place, to the con- 



264 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

temporary Thirteenth and Fourteenth Dynasties, 
each of which reigned side by side, one at Memphis, 
the other at Xois, or Sebennytus, for two hundred 
and forty-two years. 

We are chiefly concerned about the "Potestas 
Sebennitarum;" that is, the dynasty of Heracleopo- 
Htes, who reigned contemporaneously with the The- 
bans of the Thirteenth Dynasty from 2590 B. C. to 
2348 B. C. I think it will eventually turn out that 
Xois and Sebennytus are but two names for one and 
the same city. Many cities of ancient Egypt bore two 
or more names. Thus Tanis and Per-Ramessu, Suc- 
coth and Per-tum, are the popular and sacred names 
of two well known cities. In the same way the popu- 
lar name Xois, in the course of time, may have given 
way to the sacred, or temple, name Sebennytus, now 
Semennud. 

The Heracleopolites, who had established them- 
selves at Xois in the Delta after their overthrow by 
the Thebans, about 2833 B. C, considered their right 
to the double crown of the two lands superior to that 
of the Diospolitans. In fact, it is probable that Seti I, 
in the Table of Abydus, recognized the kings of the 
Fourteenth Dynasty as his "ancestors." Between 
Menthusuphis II and Neb-cher-ra Menthu-hotep, this 
table contains the throne-titles of eighteen kings, 
none of which can be identified with any of the rulers 
of the Eleventh, Thirteenth, or Fifteenth Dynasties. 
Are we not forced to assume that Seti I recognized, 
after the Sixth Dynasty, the kings of the Eighth, 
Twelfth, and Fourteenth Dynasties? 



History of Ancient Egypt 265 

We have seen that Manetho, after completing his 
Thinite Dynasties, went back two hundred and four- 
teen years to take up the Memphite Dynasties, and 
that after completing these he again went back one 
hundred and forty-two years to take up the Heracle- 
opolite Dynasties. This was the ancient Egyptian 
method, and it was but natural that Manetho should 
complete the Heracleopolite line before taking up the 
Theban line. By following this ancient method, Sell 
was enabled to place the kings of the Twelfth Dynasty 
immediately in front of the Eighteenth Dynasty in 
the Table of Abydos. 

The divided kingdom under the Thirteenth and 
Fourteenth Dynasties seems to have culminated in 
disorder and great national weakness. Shem, Ham, 
and Japheth, who were born one hundred years be- 
fore the Flood; that is, 2448 B. C, were "sons of 
No-6a'' which means local governments set up in 
Egypt by these three foreign races. It appears from 
the extracts of Barbarus, that Manetho mentioned 
these foreign governments in his great historical 
work, and we can safely assume that the Shemite Gov- 
ernment had its capital at Bubastis, the Hamite Gov- 
ernment at Tanis, and the la-pet-u at some convenient 
point in the northwestern angle of the Delta. 

It is hard to determine what is meant by "Iliopoli- 
tarum" and "Ermapohtorum," for the corruption of 
these names may equal that of the numbers. The lists 
of Africanus had been changed before they reached 
Barbarus, as is evident from the seventeen kings of 
the Fourth Dynasty and thirty-one kings of the Sixth 



266 A Self-Verifying Chronological 

Dynasty (viginti unus by mistake for triginti unus). 
We can assume, therefore, that the Hyksos kings had 
already been substituted for the Diospolitan kings of 
the Fifteenth Dynasty. Now, as the Hyksos kings, 
according to Manetho, held Memphis, the Fifteenth 
and Seventeenth Dynasties would be represented by 
'Totestas Memphitarum," the total of which was 
originally five hundred and eleven years. These dy- 
nasties would cover the numbers 251, 260, and 511. 
We should not forget that, in his chronological 
scheme, Manetho had, iirst, Thinite kings for three 
hundred and fifty years; then "Memphite kings" for 
1,797 years; and, lastly, ''Other Kings" for 1,810 
years. The "Memphite kings" include the Fifteenth 
Dynasty, which was Diospolitan, and the "Other 
Kings" begin with the Hyksos Dynasty, 2097 B. C. 
These Hamite- kings were the actual Pharaohs, hold- 
ing the ancient capital Memphis for two hundred and 
sixty years. During this period Manetho had two 
dynasties, the Sixteenth, Theban, and the Seven- 
teenth, Hyksos. Although the foreigners, being the 
actual Pharaohs, naturally came first, Manetho, true 
to the Egyptian custom, completed the Theban line 
before he took up the Hyksos Dynasty. 

Now, as Manetho had but three dynasties between 
the Hyksos Invasion and the Eighteenth Dynasty, all 
of which are satisfactorily accounted for, it follows 
that the Tanites, Bubastites, etc., found by Barbarus 
in the chronological work of Africanus, must be 
placed in the period of two hundred and forty-two 
years between the Twelfth Dynasty and Hyksos In- 



History of Ancient Egypt 267 

vasion, which is a most remarkable confirmation of 
the Mosaic accomit of affairs during the period of one 
hundred years immediately preceding the Noachian 
Flood. 

LOCATION OF THE PYRAMIDS 

If the first dynasty of ''Thinites" reigned at Heli- 
opolis, as we contend, the pyramids of Abu-roash 
would correspond to the "pyramids of Kochome," 
built by KebahUy as epoch king ''Uen-nepher." These 
pyramids are near the old nome of Ka-kem and oppo- 
site Heliopolis, just where we might expect to find 
them. 

The celebrated "Step-pyramid" of Sakkara, which 
was built by Necherochis (Nuter-achi), the first king 
of the Third Dynasty, is opposite Memphis. When 
we consider that Necherochis, the first "Memphite 
king," reigned contemporaneously with Binothris, 
the third king of the Second Thinite Dynasty, the one 
at Memphis, the other at HeliopoHs, the position of 
this venerable pyramid agrees perfectly with the his- 
torical facts. The dividing line between the two king- 
doms at that time was a short distance only below 
Memphis. Thus Eratosthenes recognizes the Mem- 
phite kings of the Third Dynasty as Theban kings, 
which could not have been the case if the Second 
Dynasty had been located south of Memphis or at 
Abydus. 

The Fourth Dynasty ruled over both countries, 
hence we find the Pyramids of Chufu, Chafra, and 
Menkaura at Ghizeh near the old capital, Heliopolis. 



268 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

It is true that Senoferu erected his pyramid at 
Meydum; but this may have been commenced before 
he succeeded in uniting the two kingdoms. 

As the Pyramids of Ghizeh follow each other from 
north to south, I suspect that the small Pyramids of 
Zawyet-el-Arrian belong to Shepseskaf, the last king 
of the Fourth Dynasty, and Userkaf, the first king of 
the Fifth Dynasty. 

The northernmost of the three large Pyramids of 
Abusir belongs to Sahura, the next to Ranuser, and 
the third, as I believe, to Tatkara Assa, all of the 
Fifth Dynasty. The Pyramid of Unas, the last king 
of the Fifth Dynasty, as we might have assumed before 
it was opened in 1881, is south of these. 

The Sixth Dynasty was Elephantingen ; that is, of 
a different line; and Teta, accordingly, sought a new 
field, and built his pyramid near that of Necherochis, 
at Sakkara. The Pyramids of Pepa I, Menthusu- 
phis I, and Pepa II follow successively as we proceed 
southwardly from the Pyramid of Unas. 

No great pyramids were erected during the period 
of one hundred and forty-eight years following the 
downfall of the Old Empire; but the kings of the 
Twelfth Dynasty, after the kingdom had been re- 
established, again erected their pyramids near the old 
capital between Dahshur (Tash-iir) and the Fayum. 
The Pyramid of Amenemes III was w^ithin the Fayum, 
and adjoined the celebrated Labyrinth, which was 
accounted one of the "Wonders of the World." 

The Thirteenth Dynasty, owing to the rival dy- 
nasty of Heraclepolites at Xois, or Sebennytus, was 



History of Ancient Egypt 269 

too weak to erect large and enduring pyramids, al- 
though its kings held Memphis. One of the last kings 
of this dynasty was buried near the pyramid of a king 
of the Twelfth Dynasty. The Hyksos Invasion put 
an end to pyramid building. Thus the location of the 
pyramids agrees with the assumed development of 
Egypt from the north to the south, and not vice versa. 

THIRTEENTH DYNASTY OF SIXTEEN DIOSPOLITAN 
KINGS 

In the Table of Karnak, and on the fragment of 
The Turin papyrus given in facsimile on Plate XIII 
of Lepsius's ''Book of Kings," Sehku-noferu-ra follows 
immediately after Maat-cheni-ra (Amenemes IV). 

Manetho closes his Twelfth Dynasty with Skemi- 
ofris (Sebkunofris), who reigned four years, or, ac- 
cording to the papyrus, three years, ten months, and 
twenty-four days. In the List of Africanus ''Skemi- 
ofris" is termed "sister;" but there is nothing but the 
throne-title, Sehku-noferu-ra, to correspond to the 
sa-ra, or proper name of Manetho. The sister of 
Amenemes IV may have reigned as regent during 
the minority of the king. Be this as it may, the short 
reign of Sehku-noferu-ra was followed by a division 
of the kingdom. 

From the earliest times Egypt was divided into 
the Upper Country and Lower Country, and the di- 
vision was so strongly marked that it was never lost 
sight of. The most powerful Pharaohs ruled in a 
dual capacity as Suten, "King of Upper Egypt," and 
Buti, "King of Lower Egypt." I believe that the 



270 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

Vulture-Ur^us title, called ''Lord of Diadems," points 
to a still more ancient division of the government. 

There was always a tendency to separation, which 
became more marked in times of oppression or ad- 
versity. The reign of the Elephantinean kings of the 
Sixth Dynasty culminated in a division of the king- 
dom; and the burdens imposed on the people of 
Lower Egypt and the vicinity of the Fayum by Amen- 
emes III and his children, during a period of fully 
fifty years, likewise led to the defection of the greater 
portion of Lower Egypt. A rival dynasty, called the 
Fourteenth, established at Xois, in the heart of the 
Delta, became independent about 2590 B. C; but the 
ancient capital, Memphis, remained in the possession 
of the Theban line. As we have just seen, Manetho 
classed the Thirteenth and Fifteenth Dynasties of 
Diospolitan kings with the "Memphite kings;" be- 
sides we are forced to assume that the kings of the 
Fourteenth Dynasty fixed their capital at Xois. 

The last king in the List of Eratosthenes, called 
Amuthartaios, has a reign of sixty-three years, and 
it seems that Eusebius obtained his total of two hun- 
dred and forty-five years for the Twelfth Dynasty by 
adding these sixty-three years to the one hundred and 
eighty-two years of the separate reigns. The last 
three reigns in his list now appear as follows : 

Sesostris, 48 years 

Ivamaris, who built the Ars incite Labyrinth as 

his tomb, etc., 8 " 

His successors reigned, 42 " 

Total, , . . . 245 " 



History OF Ancient Egypt 271 

The separate numbers foot up one hundred and 
eighty-two years only; hence it is evident that the Hst 
originally stood as follows: 

Sesostris (Usertasen III), 38 years 

"Ramais" (Amen -em-het III), 42 " 

" His successors," 63 

Total, 245 " 

But this was not Manetho's arrangement, for the 
Thirteenth and Fourteenth Dynasties commence si- 
multaneously at 2590 B. C, the date of the division 
of the kingdom. The names and reigns of the kings 
of this dynasty, and in fact all the following dynasties 
down to the Seventeenth, or Hyksos, Dynasty, are 
now wanting in the lists, and we are compelled to 
grope our way without the assistance of Manetho or 
Eratosthenes. 

In the Table of Karnak the kings are grouped so 
as to bring certain favored ones immediately in front 
of the standing figure of Thothmes III, and, to add 
to the difficulties, the names of these favored kings — 
four in number — are destroyed, with the exception of 
one in the third section, (Sochem)-uah-chau-ra. 

The portion of the Turin papyrus containing the 
names and reigns of the kings of this entire period 
exists in fragments of different shapes and sizes, be- 
tween which there are often gaps of unknown extent. 
Fragment 72 contains the names of nine kings be- 
longing to the Thirteenth Dynasty. It is probable 
that two names are lost by the break between this 
fragment and the following piece, composed of frag- 



272 



A Self-Verifying Chronological 



ments yG, yy, and 78. The following are the frag- 
ments relating to this period : 



TURIN 

FRAGMENT 72. 

1. Chu-taui-ra. 

2. Sochem-ka-ra,fl;r/-(?«-(?/^?« 

suteniu, 2544 B. C. 
Ra(Amen ?) em-het. 
Se-hotep-ab-ra. 
Auf-ni. 
S'anch-ab-ra. 
Se-hotep-ab-ra. 
ka-ra. 



3- 
4. 
5- 
6. 
8. 
9- 

FRAGMENTS 76, 77, AND 78. 

1. Notem-ab-ra. 

2. Sebku-hotep-ra. 

3. Ran kau [ari-en-ef em 

suteniu), 2424 B. C. 

4. Autu-(fu ?) ab-ra Har (?) 

5. Sezef ra. 

6. Sochem- chu-taui-ra Seb- 

ku-hotep. 

7. User ra. 

FRAGMENTS 78 AND 79. 

I. [S'mench-ka]-ra Emir Me- 

shau. 

ka (?) 

user-ka (?) 

Sochem-s'uot-taui-ra Seb- 

ku-hotep. 
Cha-seshes-ra Nofer-hotep. 
Sa-ha-et-har (Hathor). 
Cha-nofer-ra Sebku-hotep. 



PAPYRUS 

FRAGMENT 81. 

1. Cha-hotep-ra. 

2. Uah-ab-ra lanu ab. 

3. Mer-nofer-ra (ari-en-ef em 

suteniu), 2064 B. C. 

4. Mer-hotep-ra. 

5. S'anch-s'uat-(?) ra. 

6. Mer-sochem-ra An-ran. 

7. S'uot-ka-ra Har. 



8. (?) em (?) ra. 

FRAGMENT 97. 

1. Nahu-si. 

2. Cha-cheru-ra. 

Neb-ef-autu-ra. 

Se-heb. 

Mer-zefa-ra. 

S'uot-ka-ra. 

Neb-zefa-ra. 

Uben ra. 



FRAGMENTS 98 AND 99. 

zefa-ra. 

uben-ra. 

Autu-ab-ra. 

Har-ab-ra, 

Neb-sen-ra. 



It will be seen that the second king, Sochem-ka-ra, 
is distinguished as an epoch-king by "ari-cn-cf em 
suteniu'' and it is stated that the epoch fell in the 



History of Ancient Egypt 273 

sixth year of his reign. The papyrus gives Chu-taui-ra 
sixty years, while Eratosthenes gives Amuthartaios 
sixty-three years. It seems, therefore, that the first 
tv/o kings of this dynasty reigned jointly for many 
years. Although Amuthartaios appears last in the 
List of Eratosthenes, I believe that Siphthas (Sa-Ptah, 
"Son of Vulcan"), with a reign of five years, repre- 
sents the epoch-reign of Sochem-ka-ra before the epoch 
2544 B. C, for the reason that it agrees accurately 
with the papyrus, and ''Siphthas" is undoubtedly an 
epoch-title. 

Allowing two names for the gap between frag- 
ment y2 on the one hand, and fragments 76, yy^ and 
78 on the other, there were eleven kings between 
Sochem-ka-ra Siphthas and the next epoch-king 
Ran . . . kau, who marks the epoch of Tybi, 2424 
B. C. The first element Ran has a determinative 
showing that it means ''name," and it is possible that 
the destroyed portion contained an epoch-title. As 
this dynasty came to a close 2348 B. C, it reigned 
seventy-six years after this epoch. Assuming that 
Ran . . . kau was the fourteenth king, Fu-ab-ra Har 
and Se^ef . . . . ra were the last kings of this dy- 
nasty. The sixteen kings of this dynasty built their 
tombs between Memphis and the Fayum. They seem 
to have been weak and insignificant, and very few 
monuments dating from their reigns have reached us. 
If their tombs had been in the vicinity of Thebes, they 
would have been mentioned in the Abbott papyrus, 
or some remains of them would have survived. That 
they were of the Diospolitan line we know from the 
18 



274 ^ Self- Verifying Chronological 

Table of Karnak, where S'anch-ab-ra appears as No. 
3, and Chu-taui-ra as No. 20. No doubt others ap- 
peared among the destroyed and mutilated ovals; but 
as they were not particularly distinguished, they were 
distributed around, regardless of order, in the places 
left vacant after certain groups had been provided for. 
It so happens that these have suffered most. 

There is no authority for calling Chu-taui-ra "Seb- 
ku-hotep /." One of the kings of this dynasty bore 
the throne-title Sebku-hotep; but we have no evidence 
that any of them bore this name. 

The tomb of the next to the last king of this 
dynasty, Fu-ab-ra Har, was found in a pit near the 
brick pyramid of Dahshur. It had been rifled in 
ancient times; but a wooden statue, parts of the cofHn, 
and other objects remained. A coffer was sealed up, 
and bore an impression reading ^'Ra-en-maat.'' I see 
in the name Dahshur a survival of Tash-ur; that is, 
''ancient boundary," or dividing line, between Upper 
and Lower Egypt, a vicinity which would naturally 
have a special attraction for kings of the Theban line, 
claiming, but unable to assert, sovereignty over 
Lower Egypt. This tomb of one of the last kings 
of this dynasty proves that Manetho was right in call- 
ing it "Diospolitan" and classing it with "Memphite 
kings." Har added to the throne-title indicates that 
this king's name was compounded with Har. Rely- 
ing on Manetho and this king's position at the end of 
the dynasty, I venture the prediction that his Sa-ra 
name was Har-ti-ma, "Horus, the Lancer," rendered 
Tiniaios by Manetho, the unfortunate king who hap- 



History of Ancient Egypt 275 

pened to be on the throne when the 'Aamu invasion 
occurred. 

In conclusion, we should bear in mind that the 
epoch 2544 B. C. fell in the sixth year of Socheni-ka-ra, 
the second king of this dynasty, and that we have 
fourteen reigns, exclusive of this king, in the remain- 
ing period of one hundred and ninety-six years, mak- 
ing the average so short that we are bound to assume 
that other than normal conditions prevailed; that is, 
either wars or internal dissensions. 

The Fourteenth Dynasty ruled side by side with 
this dynasty at Xois, in the heart of the Delta. Ac- 
cording to the Mosaic account, three sons were born 
to Noah one hundred years before the Flood, or 
2448 B. C. Of course, these were governments 
founded by Shem, Ham, and Japheth, in Egypt. Bar- 
barus, who drew from Africanus, found immediately 
after the Twelfth Dynasty such items as "Potestas 
Tanitorum," etc., showing that Manetho mentioned 
the local governments at Tanis, Bubastis, Sebenny- 
tus, etc., which agrees with the conditions implied. 
In the first place, the native kingdom at Xois was 
too weak to prevent the inroads of Hamites and 
Shemites on the eastern frontier of the Delta, and 
Tamahu, or Libyans, of Japhetic race, on the western 
frontier. These races effected permanent settlements 
in the Delta, and established racial governments, — 
the 'Aamu at Tanis, Shemites at Bubastis and in the 
land of Goshen, and Libyans in the northwestern 
angle of the Delta, presumably at Rakotis, the later 
Alexandria, although it is possible that they also held 



276 A Self-Verifying Chronological 

the city of Sais. In the second place, it is evident 
that the Thirteenth Dynasty was also too weak to 
prevent the dismemberment of Lower Egypt, or to 
take advantage of it. Such a miserable state of afifairs 
weakened and paralyzed the country, and brought 
down upon Egypt one of those remarkable floods 
of half-civilized yellow Asiatics, or 'Aamu, by which 
the civilized world has been periodically scourged and 
deluged. 

THE HYKSOS INVASION 

We now come to the greatest calamity that ever 
befell the Egyptian State prior to the Persian In- 
vasion. 

In the year 2348 B. C, after the Thirteenth and 
Fourteenth Dynasties had reigned side by side for 
two hundred and forty-two years, a flood of yellow 
Asiatics, 'Aamu, or ''Hamites," swept down from the 
^'eastern parts;" that is, the portion of Asia lying east 
of Babylonia, and inundated Western Asia and the 
Delta. These people were known to the Egyptians 
by the race-name 'Aamu, "Ham," and this name ap- 
pears on the monuments as far back as the beginning 
of the Sixth Dynasty. The Shemites, in contradis- 
tinction to the 'Aamu, were called Mentiu, "Syrians," 
Hintsha, and Satiu, "Beduin," etc. 

In the pictorial representations of the four races 
in the tombs of the Nineteenth and Twentieth Dy- 
nasties, the Asiatic, or yellozv, race is called 'Aamu, 
"Ham;" the Japhetic, or white, race Temahu; the 
African, or black, race Nahsu; and the native Egyp- 
tians, or rosy, race Lutu, ''Leute." 



HiSTOR Y OF Ancient Eg ypt 277 

The derivation and meaning of "Ham" is so clear 
that it is hard to understand how scientists derived it 
from liem, "black," or Kemiy "Black Lyand," a name 
applied to the Delta. They started out with the false 
and groundless assumption that the race-name 
"Ham" designated the black race, and then willfully 
closed their eyes to all that the monuments disclosed 
and taught on the subject. Prior to the Exodus the 
Negroes were seated in Africa, south of Egypt; their 
race-name on the monuments is invariably Nahsu. 
We must be careful not to confound the Cushites, 
Kashi, or Ethiopians, with the Negroes; for "Cush" 
was a "son of Ham," and, therefore, derived from the 
Asiatic 'Aamvi. 

The inhabitants of the Sinaitic peninsula, and of 
Canaan, Assyria, and Babylonia, were at no time Ne- 
groes, or Nahsu; but, on the contrary, ruddy and 
yellow Shemites and Hamites. The native Egyptians 
were as far removed from the 'Aamu as they were 
from the Nahsu. Originally of a light rosy hue, their 
bodies, by long exposure to the direct rays of a semi- 
tropical sun, acquired a dark ruddy color similar to 
that of our own Indians; but this efifect was not so 
pronounced in the women and children. They were 
closely allied, by race, language, and mental charac- 
teristics, to the great European, or Japhetic, race; 
and their nearest living representatives are the Sax- 
ons, Danes, and Scandinavians. The 'Aamu Flood 
of 2348 B. C. was not the only devastating flood of 
Hamites recorded in history. The invasion of Europe 
by the Huns, about 450 A. D., and the still more re- 



2jS A Self-Verifying Chronological 

cent irruption of the Turks into Asia Minor and 
Southeastern Europe, are well known and well au- 
thenticated historical events, or, I might say, calam- 
ities. What I wish particularly to call attention to, 
is the unmistakable talent for government developed 
by these people on all of these occasions, although 
they appear to have been barbarians in other respects. 
Of course, the word "government," in this connec- 
tion, applies to despotic and tyrannical govern- 
ments onl^/, such as Asia has always been cursed 
with. 

My discoveries, viewed in the light of the monu- 
ments and the Bible narrative, show that the 'Aamu 
Invasion of Egypt, and the nature of their govern- 
ment over Egypt during the first two hundred and 
fifty-one years of 'Aamii domination, differed radically 
from the descriptions thereof to be found in the mod- 
ern works on the subject. In the first place, the sov- 
ereign, or great "king of nations," was not in Egypt 
at all, but in far-off Elam! 

Josephus has transmitted an account of the Hyk- 
sos Invasion of Egypt, taken from the Second Book 
of Manetho's Egyptian History, and purporting to 
be in the very words of Manetho. As it is the only 
account we have of this catastrophe, we insert it 
literally : 

"There was a king of ours, whose name was 
Timaios. Under him it came to pass, I know not 
how, that God was averse to us, and there came, after 
a surprising manner, men of ignoble birth out of the 



History of Ancient Egypt 279 

eastern parts, and had boldness enough to make an 
expedition into our country, and with ease subdued 
it by force, yet without our hazarding a battle with 
them. So when they had gotten those that governed 
us under their power, they afterwards burned down 
our cities, and demolished the temples of the gods, 
and used all the inhabitants after a most barbarous 
manner. Nay, some they slew, and led their wives 
and children into slavery." 

We break the connection here to suggest that, at 
this point, the epitomist from whom Josephus copied 
made a leap of two hundred and fifty-one years, omit- 
ting an essential part of Manetho's narrative, as we 
shall see hereinafter: 

"At length they made one of themselves king, 
whose name was Salatis (Saites-wS'^Z/j). He also lived 
at Memphis, and made both the upper and lower 
regions pay tribute, and left garrisons in places that 
were the most proper for them. He chiefly aimed to 
secure the eastern parts, as foreseeing that the As- 
syrians, who had then the greatest power, would be 
desirous of that kingdom and invade them; and as he 
found in the Saite Nomos, a city very proper for this 
purpose, and which lay upon the Bubastic channel, 
but with regard to certain theological notions was 
called Avaris; this he rebuilt, and made very strong 
by the walls he built about it, and by a most numerous 
garrison of 240,000 armed men, whom he put into it 
to keep it. Thither Salatis (Saites) came in summer- 
time, partly to gather his corn and pay his soldiers 
their wages, and partly to exercise his armed men, 
and thereby to terrify foreigners." 



28o A Self-Verifying Chronological 

After giving the names and reigns of the six kings 
of Manetho's Hyksos Dynasty, Josephus continues as 
follows : 

"And these six were the first rulers among them, 
who were all along making war with the Egyptians, 
and were very desirous gradually to destroy them to 
the very roots. This whole nation was styled Hyk- 
sos; that is, Shepherd-kings; for the first syllable, 
Hyk, according to the sacred dialect, denotes a king, 
as is Sos, a shepherd — but this according to the ordi- 
nary dialect; and of these is compounded Hyksos: 
but some say that these were Arabians." 

While on the subject of the meaning of the word 
"Hyksos," which we have shown to be Hyk-satu, 
"King of foreign countries," it will be noticed that 
Manetho, after saying that ''Hyk'' means King in the 
sacred dialect — that is, the ancient hieroglyphic lan- 
guage — is careful to explain that "Sos" means shep- 
herd in the ordinary dialect, showing that he knew it 
meant foreign countries as written hieroglyphically 
in Hyk-satu, a title borne, as the monuments show, 
by the Hyksos-king Chian, or Ach-ian. 

It seems that Josephus had before him two ex- 
cerpts of Manetho's account, for he adds : 

"Now, in another copy it is said that this word 
does not denote kings; but, on the contrary, denotes 
captive shepherds, and this on account of the particle 
Hyk, for that Hyk, with the aspiration, in the Egyp- 
tian tongue, again denotes shepherds, and that ex- 
pressly also; and this to me seems a more probable 
opinion, and more agreeable to ancient history." 



History of Ancient Egypt 281 

The meaning of this is very transparent. Man- 
etho, in his history, said that Hyksos, in the sacred 
dialect, meant ''Ruler of foreign countries;" but that 
in the later demotic, or ordinary, dialect hyk aspirated 
also meant captive, and sos (shas) also meant shep- 
herd; that is, shasii, or Beduin. If Manetho's history 
contained the first derivation given by Josephus, it 
could not have contained the second quoted from 
"another copy." The fact that they are so incon- 
sistent shows that both were extracts colored to suit 
each writer's peculiar notions. 

"These people, whom we have before named 
kings, and called shepherds, as he says, kept pos- 
session of Egypt five hundred and eleven years." 

We are told that the men of ignoble birth out of 
the "eastern parts" (Elam) took Egypt by surprise. 
In his account of the campaign of Sethos (Seti I), 
Manetho uses this expression — "eastern parts" — in 
connection with the intervening countries, so that 
there can be no doubt as to the locality meant thereby. 
Sethos "made an expedition against the Assyrians 
and the Medes." After he had subdued these, "he 
went on still more boldly, and overthrew the cities 
and countries that lay in the eastern parts'' Thus it 
is plain that the "eastern parts" of Manetho were the 
countries beyond Assyria and Medea. If the invaders 
had been Mentiu, Satiu, or Hirusha, Manetho would 
have designated them as Syrians, Phoenicians, or 
Arabians, just as we sometimes speak of English and 
Erench when we really mean British and Gauls. 

The monuments support Manetho as to the burn- 



282 A Self-Verifying Chronological 

ing of cities, demolishing of temples, and barbarous 
treatment of the inhabitants in Lower Egypt, for 
Thebes was not taken. 

Josephus did not copy what Manetho said about 
the first two hundred and fifty-one years of 'Aamu 
domination. He was trying to prove that these yel- 
low, serpent-worshiping 'Aamu were the Hebrews, 
who, after entering Egypt at the invitation of Pha- 
raoh, and sojourning there for two hundred and fifteen 
years as an oppressed people, were led out by Moses 
against the wish of the Egyptians. For this reason 
Josephus arranged his extracts in such a way as to 
create the impression that the Hyksos Dynasty of 
Egyptian Pharaohs followed right after the Invasion, 
and a vague period of two hundred and fifty-one years 
intervened between the Plyksos Dynasty and the Ex- 
pulsion. Of course, he was careful not to assert this 
in so many words; but, as the separate reigns of the 
Hyksos kings footed up two hundred and fifty-nine 
years and ten months, and the entire period of 'Aamu 
domination was five hundred and eleven years, he led 
the reader to infer it; and it was so understood by the 
early chronologists who changed the Africanian Lists. 
The attempt to identify these barbarians, and their 
forcible conquest and occupation of the Delta, with 
the Hebrews and their peaceable settlement and so- 
journ in the land of Goshen, is so ridiculous and pre- 
posterous on its face that it is not entitled to serious 
consideration. 

When Manetho, speaking of the invaders, adds, 
'*Some say that they were Arabians," he means Hiru- 



History of Ancient Egypt 283 

sha or Satin; but he wrote for the Greeks and in the 
Greek language, about the beginning of the reign 
of Ptolemy Philadelphus, or 287 B. C, and naturally 
used the names by which these people were known to 
them. Manetho himself does not say they were 
Arabians; neither does he call them Phoenicians, As- 
syrians (including Babylonians), or Medes. In the 
Egyptian annals and registers translated by Manetho 
they were called 'Aamit, or Hamites; but he could find 
no equivalent Greek term for 'Aamii; therefore he 
described them simply as "men of ignoble birth from 
the eastern parts." As far back as 2448 B. C, one 
hundred years before the Flood, there were Hamites 
in Egypt, who had established a local government at 
Tanis (Zoan). Shemites and Japhites likewise had 
established local governments in the Delta at the 
same time. All these governments retreated up the 
Nile, and took refuge in Thebes, where they remained 
until the Flood had subsided. 

The pseudoSothis list of Syncellus mentions 
Tanite kings in connection with the Manethonian 
Dynasties; and Josephus quotes Manetho as saying 
that the kings of the Thebais and the other parts of 
Egypt raised the standard of revolt against the Hyk- 
sos. But, in addition to this, the inscription of Queen 
Het-shepsut, published by GolenischefT, states that the 
resident 'Aamu (in and around Tanis) assisted the 
foreign 'Aamii invaders in destroyng the temples and 
burning the cities, which removes every remaining 
doubt on the subject. 

Now, what does this prove as to King Timaios 



284 ^ Self-Verifying Chronological 

{Har-ti-maf), named by Manetho as ruling at the time 
of the Hyksos Invasion? The Thirteenth Dynasty, 
as we have seen, was ''Diospolitan," held Memphis 
and built their tombs between that city and the 
Fayum. Timaios was the next to the last king of this 
dynasty, which came to an end at the time of the 
Hyksos Invasion. We have seen that M. de Morgan, 
in April, 1894, discovered the tomb of Fu-ab-ra (also 
written Autii-ah-ra) Har, at Dahshur (Tash-ur) near 
Memphis. As Fu-ab-ra Har appears on fragments 
"/G, 77, and 78 of the papyrus, immediately after an 
epoch-king, as one of the Diospolitan kings of the 
Thirteenth Dynasty, Egyptologists were naturally 
surprised and puzzled to find his tomb so far from the 
supposed capital, Thebes; but the "find'* agrees per- 
fectly with Manetho's arrangement and classification 
of these dynasties. Not until we reach the Sixteenth 
Dynasty of the Thebaid can we expect to find the 
royal tombs at Thebes. When the local kings of the 
Sixteenth Dynasty began to build their last resting- 
places near Thebes, they followed the rulers of the 
Eleventh Dynasty, and imitated their peculiar style 
of architecture and art. They also revived the old 
names Antef and Menthuhotep. This circumstance 
makes it appear as if the Sixteenth Dynasty had im- 
mediately succeeded the Eleventh; for the Twelfth 
Dynasty, as we have seen, was imperial, resided at 
Memphis, and built its pyramids in that vicinity. 

The local governments of Shem, Ham, and 
Japheth in the Delta, although formed out of territory 
subject to the Theban kings of the Twelfth Dy- 



History of Ancient Egypt 285 

nasty — hence ''sons of Noah" — did not interfere with 
the possession of Memphis. As Ham ruled at Tanis, 
we can safely locate Shem at Bubastis. According 
to this, the 'Xand of Goshen" was Semitized long 
before the Israelites of Canaan settled there. 

The main body of the 'Aamu swarm settled down 
in Elam and Babylonia, forcing the Shemites north- 
wardly into the mountains of Assyria, and south- 
wardly into the deserts of Arabia. After the invaders 
had conquered Canaan, their army fell upon Egypt; 
but as the Egyptians submitted without resistance, 
the killing, plundering, and pillaging was sporadic, 
rather than systematic. The 'Aamii government at 
Tanis, to judge from the inscription of Queen Het- 
shepsut, joined and assisted them. In the course of 
time the Hamites naturalized in Egypt, owing to 
their superior civilization, gained the complete as- 
cendency over the foreign 'Aamii, and founded gov- 
ernments among them patterned upon the Egyptian 
model. Thus Cush was a son of Ham; that is, the 
original 'Aamu government established at Tanis 
about one hundred years before the Hyksos Invasion; 
just as Mizraim, or the Hyksos Dynasty, was a son 
of this same Hamite government. We are likewise 
assured that Canaan was a son of Ham. The direct 
and proximate effect of the Hyksos Invasion, there- 
fore, was the dispersion of many of the inhabitants 
of the Delta — Shemites, Japhites, and Hamites — into 
the neighboring countries, carrying with them and 
disseminating among other nations more or less con- 
fused and distorted notions of the arts, learning, and 



286 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

civilization of the Egyptians. The statues of Naram- 
sin, Gudea, and other ''most ancient" kings of Baby- 
lonia resemble in style the Egyptian models of the 
Thirteenth and Fifteenth Dynasties, from which 
they were copied. This is what we are bound to 
infer from the Mosaic account, according to which 
Nimrod, by whom the first kingdom in Babylonia 
was founded, was a son of Cush, and, therefore, sub- 
sequent to Ham. 

THE ALIyEGORY OF THE FLOOD 

Josephus tells us that Moses "speaks some things 
wisely, but enigmatically, and others under a decent 
allegory; but still explained such things as required 
a direct explication plainly and expressly." The 
modern world, however, disregarding this evident 
fact, insists upon a literal interpretation of the sym- 
bols, enigmatical expressions, and allegories with 
which the opening chapters of Genesis abound, and 
thereby involves itself in all kinds of inconsistencies 
and contradictions. The story of the Flood is an 
allegory, under which the Hyksos Invasion of Egypt 
is veiled and hidden. The flood and invasion both 
occurred at the same time, and affected the same 
governments, to wit: Noah, Shem, Ham, and 
Japheth. A literal interpretation of the allegory, its 
beasts of the field and fowls of the air, its waters and 
its ark, has had the effect of almost blotting out nearly 
two thousand years of glorious and eventful history 
in ancient Egypt, and of plunging mankind into cen- 
turies of error and darkness. 



History of Ancient Egypt 287 

The scope of this work prevents me from going 
into a critical examination of the meaning of the 
symbols used in this allegory; but any one desirous of 
doing so, can find the key in Ezekiel, chapter 31. 
In fact, chapter 47 of Jeremiah symbolizes the As- 
syrian conquest of Palestine, Tyre, and Sidon, as an 
overwhelming flood of waters out of the north, cov- 
ering the land and all that was therein, the cities and 
the inhabitants thereof. Here, where the correspond- 
ing historical fact was near at hand, no one ever 
dreamed of literal waters covering the land, or literal 
floods and torrents; but after the great drop-curtain 
had been lowered at 2348 B. C, the historical fact 
back of the allegory of the universal flood (Egypt 
was the world) was hidden from view, and forgotten. 
The allegory itself originated during the Hyksos 
domination over Egypt, for it was carried into Baby- 
lonia by the Hamites and survived in the celebrated 
"Flood Legends" discovered and translated by 
George Smith. 

We have seen that, according to Bible chronol- 
ogy, the birth of Noah occurred in the year 2948 
B. C, and Noah was six hundred years old when the 
Flood broke loose over the land. We have demon- 
strated that Thebes became independent at the 
downfall of the Old Empire in the year 2948 B. C, 
and that the Theban Government continued through 
the Eleventh, Twelfth, and Thirteenth Dynasties, ex- 
actly six hundred years to the Hyksos Invasion. We 
have also seen that the dynasties of Heracleopolis 
endured five hundred and ninety-four years from the 



288 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

beginning of the Eighth Dynasty, 2942 B. C, to the 
Hyksos Invasion. It can not be chance that these 
dates agree and harmonize so perfectly, and that 
Noah bears the distinctive name of Thebes, bestowed 
upon this city during the brilliant epoch of the Eigh- 
teenth and Nineteenth Dynasties, when it enjoyed the 
fame of being the greatest city on the face of the 
earth — a fame echoed in the immortal epics of 
Homer. 

Much has been written about the meaning and 
derivation of the name Thebes. In the allegory, 
Noah and his three sons escaped the Flood by retiring 
into the ark. Now, it can be seen in one of the earliest 
works on Egypt, to wit, "Egypt's Place in Universal 
History," Volume I, page 589, that Thebi, Thebe, 
or Taibe, means ''ark," and that the Septuagint ren- 
ders ark ''Thibe" and "Thebe." Thus Genesis throws 
a welcome ray of light over a dark period of Egyptian 
history, just as the events narrated in the opening 
chapters of Genesis are supported by a background 
of historical facts recorded in the stone book of an- 
cient Egypt, and freed from countless errors, woven 
around them by ignorance and superstition during 
the thirty-three centuries which have elapsed since 
the days of Moses. 

When the storm had spent its force, and the 
waters (multitudes of people) coming and going had 
returned from off the earth, Noah and his sons came 
out of the ark, and resumed their former avocations. 
Before they did this, however, they sent forth the 
dove, which returned with the olive-branch. These 



History of Ancient Egypt 285 

statements agree with what we actually find in Egypt 
immediately after the Hyksos conquest. Manetho 
tells us, unequivocally, that the Egyptians did not 
hazard a battle with the invaders. They retired up 
the Nile, took refuge in Thebes, sent out messengers 
offering their submission, which was accepted upon 
condition that they were to be subject and pay tribute 
to the great king of these people, in far-off Elam. 
We accordingly find (what we could not have fore- 
seen) the Fifteenth Dynasty of Diospolis ruling over 
the same territory that had been subject to its prede- 
cessor, the Thirteenth Dynasty. To judge from Man- 
etho's Hst, the Xoite Dynasty was destroyed, and did 
not rise again; neither do we hear anything more of 
the Heracleopolites. Thus the conditions were some- 
what favorable for the Fifteenth Dynasty, which 
seems to have been more powerful than the Thir- 
teenth Dynasty. We shall see that the Seb-ku-hoteps, 
with the exception of Cha-hotep-ra, formerly assigned 
to the Thirteenth Dynasty, probably belong here. 
This presents a state of affairs, so different from that 
commonly assumed, that it will certainly meet with 
opposition from those who are loath to abandon an 
old opinion, however erroneous it may prove to be; 
but it is always better to gracefully accept the truth in 
whatever form it is made to appear. 

It has taxed credulity to the utmost, especially 
during the last half of the nineteenth century, to be- 
lieve that the iirst man, or Adam, was created as 
recently as 4004 B. C; that individuals, as late as 
2000 B. C, attained the impossible ages of nine hun- 
19 



290 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

dred and fifty years; that in the year 2348 B. C. a 
literal flood of waters covered the whole earth to a 
depth of five or six miles, and destroyed every living 
creature, with the exception of such as escaped in a 
literal ark; and that an individual, after he had at- 
tained five hundred years of age, begat three sons, 
each of whom belonged to a different race. 

The allusion to Noah's over-indulgence in wine 
and consequent nakedness after the Flood seems to 
indicate that Thebes was over-confident, and failed 
to protect herself sufficiently against attack after the 
invading hordes had retired, and that the 'Aamu gov- 
ernment at Tanis, or Ham, took occasion to betray 
this weakness (or nakedness, as it was then called) to 
the enemy; but that Shem and Japheth, retiring back- 
wards — that is, up the Nile — protected Thebes. This 
language applies to Egypt; for the Egyptians, con- 
trary to the custom of other nations, regarded the 
north as up and the south as down; hence, they went 
"backwards," or down, when they ascended the Nile. 

The history and chronology of Egypt, supported 
by contemporary monuments and inscriptions, render 
it absolutely certain that there was no literal deluge 
such as that described in the allegory, in Egypt about 
2348 B. C. In fact, tombs which are between five 
thousand and six thousand years old, and which have 
never been disturbed since the mummies were de- 
posited in them, show no indications of a flood of lit- 
eral waters. In some of them the footprints of the 
men who laid the mummies to rest were as plainly 
visible in the dust when the tombs were opened as 



History of Ancient Egypt 291 

they were five thousand years ago, when first made. 
From a scientific point of view, a flood covering the 
entire earth to the tops of the highest mountains is 
a physical impossibility. 

In his story of the destruction of Atlantis, Plato 
tells us what Solon learned from an aged Egyptian 
priest at Sais. Solon drew the priests on to speak of 
antiquity, by telling them about the most ancient 
things in his part of the world; about Phoroneus, who 
was called the first, and about Niobe; and by telling 
them about the flood of Deucalion. He traced the 
genealogy of the descendants of Deucalion and 
Pyrrha, and attempted to reckon how old these events 
were, and to give the dates. Thereupon the priest 
said that in mind the Greeks were all young: — 

''There is no old opinion handed down among 
you by ancient tradition, nor any science which is 
hoary with age. And I will tell you the reason of 
this: there have been, and there will be again, many 
destructions of mankind arising out of many causes. 
There is a story which even you have preserved, that 
once upon a time Phaethon, the son of Helios, hav- 
ing yoked the steeds in his father's chariot, because 
he was not able to drive them in the path of his father, 
burnt all that was upon the earth, and was himself 
destroyed by a thunderbolt. Now, this has the form 
of a myth, but really signifies a declination of the 
bodies moving around the earth and in the heavens, 
and a great conflagration of things upon the earth 
recurring at long intervals of time: when this hap- 
pens, those who live upon the mountains and in dry 
and lofty places are more liable to destruction than 
those who dwell by rivers or on the seashore; and 



292 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

from this calamity the Nile, who is our never-failing 
'saviour/ saves and delivers us. When, on the other 
hand, the gods purge the earth with a deluge of 
waters, among you herdsmen and shepherds on the 
mountains are the survivors, whereas those of you 
who live in cities are carried by the rivers into the 
sea; but in this country, neither at that time nor at 
any other, does the water come from above on the 
fields, having always a tendency to come up from 
below, for which reason the things preserved here 
are said to be the oldest. The fact is that wherever 
the extremity of winter frost or of summer sun does 
not prevent, the human race is always increasing at 
times, and at other times diminishing in numbers. 
And whatever happened, either in your country or 
in ours, or in any other region of which we are in- 
formed, if any action which is noble or great, or in 
any other way remarkable, has taken place, all that 
has been written down of old, and is preserved in our 
temples; whereas you and other nations are just being 
provided with letters and the other things which 
States require; and then, at the usual period, the 
stream from heaven descends like a pestilence, and 
leaves only those of you who are destitute of letters 
and education; and thus you have to begin all over 
again as children, and know nothing of what hap- 
pened in ancient times, either among us or among 
yourselves. 

"As for those genealogies of yours which you 
have recounted to us, Solon, they are no better than 
the tales of children; for, in the first place, you re- 
member one deluge only, whereas there were many 
of them; and, in the next place, you do not know that 
there dwelt in your land the fairest and noblest race 
of men which ever lived, of whom you and your 
whole city are but a seed or remnant. And this was 



History of Ancient Egypt 293 

unknown to you, because for many generations the 
survivors of that destruction died and made no sign. 
For there was a time, Solon, before that great deluge 
of all, when the city, which now is Athens, was first 
in war, and was pre-eminent for the excellence of her 
laws, and is said to have performed the noblest deeds, 
and to have had the fairest constitution of any of 
which tradition tells, under the face of heaven." 

The priest then proceeded to tell Solon what their 
histories related of a mighty power which came forth 
out of the Atlantic Ocean, from an island situated in 
front of the Columns of Heracles, and subjected 
Libya as far as Egypt, and Europe as far as Tyrrhenia. 
This vast power was defeated by the Athenians. But 
afterward there occurred violent earthquakes and 
floods, and in a single day and night of rain the island 
of Atlantis disappeared, and sank beneath the sea. 
The island, which was larger than Asia and Libya put 
together, was the way to other islands, from which 
you might pass through the whole of the opposite 
continent, which surrounded the true ocean. The 
priest further informed Solon that the Mediterranean 
was only a harbor, having a narrow entrance ; but that 
the other was a real sea, and the surrounding land 
might be most truly called a continent. 

We have cited the above from Solon, through 
Plato, for the purpose of showing that no literal flood 
of waters, excepting the annual inundation, deluged 
Egypt during the six thousand years covered by her 
histories. If a universal deluge had actually occurred 
after the accession of Mena, Egypt would have been 



294 ^ Self- Verifying Chronological 

the first country to suffer, because it is only a few feet 
above the level of the ocean, and there would cer- 
tainly have been some evidences of it on the monu- 
ments strewn over the country from Nubia to Tanis, 
and some mention of it in their sacred registers. 

The priest of Sais, about 600 B. C, said to Solon, 
"You remember one deluge only, whereas there were 
many of them;" and assured him that the Egyptians 
had written down and preserved in their temples ac- 
counts of everything noble or great, or otherwise 
remarkable, which had occurred in Egypt or Greece, 
or any other region with which they were acquainted. 
Both Solon and Plato studied in Egypt. " The above 
account bears evidence on its face that it was taken 
from the sacred registers preserved in the temples 
of Egypt, and not invented by Solon or Plato. It is 
true that the foundation of Sais, as fixed by the priest, 
to wit, about 8600 B. C, appears to be extravagant 
in view of Manetho's chronology, which does not 
carry the Achiu, or "saints," farther back than 5500 
B. C. ; but it must be remembered that he was giving 
a mythological date; for he was speaking of Neith or 
Athene, the goddess who loved war as well as wis- 
dom. The point of interest here is that the Egyptians 
had accounts of the Deluge of Deucalion, and of many 
other floods, all of which were local and not universal, 
although the people concerned imagined they affected 
the whole earth. The discovery of the Pyramid Texts 
has furnished evidence, as astonishing as it was unex- 
pected, of the truth of the statements of the Egyptian 
priest concerning the antiquity of the Athenians, or 



History of Ancient Egypt 295 

lonians, namely, "You do not know that there dwelt 
in your land the fairest and noblest race of men which 
ever lived," and "For there was a time, Solon, before 
that great deluge of all, when the city which is now 
Athens was first in war, and was pre-eminent for the 
excellency of her laws." 

The inscriptions in the Pyramid of Teta, who 
mounted the throne 3146 B. C, speak of the two 
sisters of the deceased king, Isis and Nephthys, caus- 
ing his soul to pass, in succession, Kem-et ur-et (near 
the present Lake of Crocodiles on the Suez Canal) 
in his name of Kem-ur (the Great Black) and Aneh 
Uaz-et ur-et; that is, "the fortress of Uaz-et ur-et,'' in 
his name of Uaz-ur, "Great Green," or Mediterranean 
Sea; and the "Great Turn," or Shen-et ur-et, at the 
southeast bend of the Mediterranean, called the lake 
of Shen-ur, to finally "circle around" the great circle, 
at the northeast bend of the Mediterranean, which 
encircles (packer) the la-nim-u, or lonians. The name 
la-nim-u is written exactly as it was nearly three thou- 
sand years later in the Ptolemaic period, so that there 
can be no question whatever as to its meaning, for it 
was then translated "lonians," or Greeks. But even 
if we did not know this from the inscriptions of the 
later period, the locality is so accurately pointed out 
that no mistake could be made in rendering the name 
la-nim-u. Isis and Nephthys conveyed the deceased 
along the great highway leading to Asia Minor. This 
great road at that time passed through the fortified 
town on Lake Timsah, which was then known as the 
"Great Black," in contradistinction to the "Great 



296 A Self-Verifying Chronological 

Green," or Mediterranean. It will be remembered 
that Sa-nuh-et passed the fortified wall at this same 
place — the cherubim and flaming sword pointing 
every way, which was placed before the Garden of 
Eden, "to keep the way of the tree of life." After 
passing Kem-iir, the highway took a northerly direc- 
tion along the east bank of the Bubastic arm of the 
Nile, until it reached the Mediterranean at the fort- 
ress bearing the same name; that is, the fortress of 
Uaz-ur. From this point the highway followed the 
Mediterranean in an easterly course until it reached 
the great bend at the lake of Shen-ur, "Great Bend," 
where the shore takes a direction almost due north. 
To this day the highway follows the shore of the sea 
northwardly, until it reaches the other great bend, 
where it is happily described as turning around, de- 
henta shenet, the circle which encompasses the lonians. 
(Pyramid Texts, Teta, 274 and 275; Pepa I, 122; 
Mer-en-ra I, 91; Pepa II, 98, etc.) Of all the revela- 
tions contained in the sealed book of ancient Egypt, 
this is one of the most startling. Modern historians, 
who have invented a primeval seat for the Japhetic 
race in the highlands of Central Asia, from which 
they proceed to trace successive migrations to Europe 
in comparatively late times, will have to revise their 
works fundamentally; for the lonlans are shown by 
contemporary Inscriptions to have been In Greece 
before the date of King Teta, or more than three 
thousand years before the Christian Era. Before I 
had seen the Pyramid Texts, I had noticed that 
Japheth was the Lower Egyptian form of Ja-pet-u, 



History of Ancient Egypt 297 

the ''foreign /a." The hieroglyphic rendering of la- 
nim-u shows that the plural mm, "all," refers to a 
great nation, because it means, literally, the la "col- 
lectively," which can only apply to a people compris- 
ing many different nations. Consequently, when this 
term was first applied to the lonians by the Egyp- 
tians, which was certainly before the reign of King 
Teta, they were the leading power in Europe. 

Moses, who drew from Egyptian sources, speak- 
ing of the sons of lavan, says : "By these were divided 
the islands of the Gentiles in their lands, every one 
according to his tongue, and their families in their 
nations," — all of which is expressed by la-nim-u. To 
those Egyptologists who still insist that the literature 
of the Old and Middle Empire was destroyed and 
swept away by the Hyksos flood, I would say, that 
the above-mentioned fact alone demonstrates the 
truth of the statement made by the priest of Sais to 
Solon, that the remarkable events in Egypt, Greece, 
and other countries were written down of old and 
preserved in the temples. If it had not been so, he 
could not have known this about the primitive lo- 
nians, for it is evident that Solon knew nothing about 
it, and that the Greeks generally had preserved no 
recollection of it. 

There is no reason why a description of an actual 
local flood, supposed to have been universal, should 
not have served as the figure of an allegory, where 
the thing said is not the thing meant; but there are 
some features about the flood-story in Genesis which 
lead me to believe that it was originally taken from 



298 A Self-Verifying Chronological 

an account of the inundation in Egypt, carried back 
to Asia by the ' Aamu invaders, to whom it must have 
appeared as a miracle. Note the language of the 
priest to Solon, that in Egypt, neither at the time of 
the floods mentioned nor at any other, did the water 
come from above on the fields; but that it always had 
a tendency to come up from below. This was the 
mysterious periodical rising of the river without rains 
or any other visible cause. The water seemed to 
come up from the fountains of the deep. In Genesis 
we read, first, that all the fountains of the great deep 
were broken up, and afterwards that the fountains of 
the deep were closed. These expressions pertain to 
Egypt and the Nile alone. The rain and the opening 
of the floodgates of heaven pertained to Babylonia. 
But the presence of the fountains of the deep, which 
related to the rising of the waters from below, show 
that Egypt was the land to which the story applied, 
for the expression is not applicable to Babylonia. 

We are told that the water was fifteen cubits 
higher than the mountains w^hich it covered. Why 
was the height above the mountains stated to be 
fifteen cubits? This number was certainly used for 
some purpose. If the flood had been universal, it 
would have been sufUcient if all the mountains were 
covered, without regard to the exact depth. It will 
be seen at once that fifteen cubits can not apply to 
mountains in general, because they vary greatly in 
height. The water of the inundation, however, does 
cover the level, alluvial plains of Egypt to the depth 
of fifteen cubits, or twenty-two or twenty-three feet. 



History of Ancient Egypt 299 

I — —————— —^—^——— ——^^——^— ——^——— —— 

The annual rise of the Nile at Cairo is about twenty- 
three or twenty- four feet; but at Heliopolis, the rec- 
ognized center of observation, it is about fifteen 
cubits. During the inundation the Egyptians retired 
within their cities, or arks, taking their beasts of the 
field, fowls of the air, crops, and provisions of all 
kinds with them, and they remained in these arks, 
resting safely above the waters, until the inundation 
subsided and the dry land appeared; when they natu- 
rally again went forth from their cities. If the reader 
should desire to investigate this subject more fully, 
and study the meaning of the symbols and figures 
used in Scriptures, the great work of L. A. Wood, 
now ready for publication, entitled, "Ancient Egypt, 
the Tree of Life," will afford the wished-for oppor- 
tunity. This work presents the subject in a new light, 
and supplies a background of historical facts hitherto 
overlooked or forgotten, and will be found to be able, 
logical, and exhaustive, as well as original and inter- 
esting. 

FIFTEENTH DYNASTY OF BI.BVBN DIOSPOLITAN KINGS 

We have already seen that the Thirteenth and 
Fourteenth Dynasties came to a close at the Hyksos 
Invasion; and that Manetho extended the Memphite 
kings two hundred and fifty-one years beyond that 
date, or down to 2097 B. C, the date of the begin- 
ning of the great Hyksos Dynasty. 

The kings of the Thirteenth Dynasty have left 
few monuments which have survived to our times. 
I am not aware that any evidences of their rule have 



300 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

been found at Bubastis, or Tanis, or, in fact, any- 
where else in the Delta. The kings of the Fifteenth 
Dynasty, on the contrary, appear to have ruled over 
Egypt from Nubia to Tanis; and we are confronted 
with a state of things, during the first two hundred 
and fifty-one years of Hamite domination, diametric- 
ally opposed to that laid down in the modern text- 
books on ancient Egypt. Here, as elsewhere, I pro- 
pose to follow Manetho and the monuments as the 
most trustworthy guides, even though by so doing 
some old familiar theories may have to be abandoned. 
We have been accustomed to look upon the Hyk- 
sos Invasion as a calamity, which almost destroyed 
the Egyptian nation, and completely blotted out 
Egyptian civilization. A closer inspection of Man- 
etho's account will show that this opinion is wholly 
unfounded. He merely says that men of ignoble birth 
from the eastern parts had boldness enough to make 
an expedition into Egypt, and easily subdued it by 
force, for the Egyptians did not even hazard a battle 
with them; and that when they had gotten those who 
governed the Egyptians under their power, they 
burned the cities, demoHshed the temples, etc. Thus 
it was simply an expedition into Egypt by the army 
of the Hamite Government established in Elam. We 
have already called attention to the fact that the 
quotation of Josephus is but a fragment, and does 
not touch the first two hundred and fifty-one years of 
'Aamu domination at all. We all know how Asiatic 
conquerors usually governed conquered countries. 
They invariably set up native kings of the royal line. 



History of Ancient Egypt 301 

who exercised all the authority of kings, but were 
subject to the payment of an annual tribute. Fortu- 
nately, we know how this same Klamite Empire was 
governed and administered several centuries after the 
Hyksos conquest. 

Chapter 14 of Genesis contains an account of a 
war made by Kudur-lagomar, king of the Elamites, 
and his associate kings, against the kings of Canaan. 
We are told that these kings had served Kudur- 
lagomar twelve years, and in the thirteenth year they 
revolted from him. In the fourteenth year Kudur- 
lagomar and the kings that were with him invaded 
Canaan, and ravaged the land to the confines of 
Egypt. Now, it is plain that the kings who accom- 
panied Kudur-lagomar on this expedition, including 
Amraphel, King of Shinar (afterwards Babylonia), 
were subject kings, bearing the titles and exercising 
the local authority of kings. We are bound to infer 
that the entire territory between Elam and the Medi- 
terranean Sea was governed by the King of Elam 
in this way, and that as long as the subject-kings paid 
the required tribute, they were not molested. Unless 
we indulge in speculation and conjecture, we can not 
escape the conclusion that when the king of the 
Elamites added Egypt to his empire, he administered 
it in the same way. It is difficult to accustom our- 
selves to the novel idea that, at the date of the sup- 
posed flood, 2348 B. C, there was an Elamite Em- 
pire in Western Asia, covering a greater extent of 
country than that governed by Cyrus 1,800 years 
later. 



302 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

Strange as it may seem, the Hyksos conquest 
turned out to be, in some respects, an actual advan- 
tage to the Diospolitan kings. At the close of the 
Thirteenth Dynasty the Delta was divided up into a 
number of petty kingdoms, three of v^hich were com- 
posed of foreigners settled and naturalized in Egypt. 
The brunt of the invasion struck the Delta, and the 
invaders ''easily" accomplished (what the Theban 
kings could not accomplish) the destruction of the 
numerous petty governments in the Delta. The 
Theban kings of the Fifteenth Dynasty acknowl- 
edged themselves subject to the great ruler of the 
Hamites, and, backed up by his power, were able to 
exercise sovereignty over the Delta itself, as well as 
the territory governed by the Thirteenth Dynasty. 
Thus, the kings of the Fifteenth Dynasty were far 
more powerful than their predecessors of the Thir- 
teenth Dynasty. Under Hamite protection, Tanis, 
near the northeastern angle of the Delta, became a 
favorite residence of the kings, and we shall see that 
some of their principal monuments were found at 
Tanis. It almost seems that the name Sebku-hotep 
was assumed by these kings in deference to "Sutech," 
or Typhonic Set, the chief deity of the Hamites. 

The throne-title of the second king on fragment 
8 1 of the papyrus, Uah-ab-ra-Ian-ab, fixes him un- 
mistakably at the summer solstice of the Sothiac 
year 2064 B. C, and makes him the contemporary 
of the Hyksos king, Pa-ian. This important epoch- 
king was preceded on the same fragment by Cha- 
hotep-ra, who was one of the Sebku-hoteps specially 



History of Ancient Egypt 303 

honored in the Table of Karnak. Cha-hotep-ra 
reigned but four years, eight months, and twenty- 
nine days, and, therefore, belongs to the Sixteenth 
Dynasty. We do not know how great the gap be- 
tween fragment 81 and fragments 78 and 79 is, but 
the last king on these fragments is the Sebku-hotep 
who bore the throne-title Cha-nofer-ra. In the Table 
of Karnak, which omits all kings who are not in 
the direct genealogical line, there are two kings 
(Cha-ka-ra) and Cha-anch-ra, between Cha-nofer-ra 
and Cha-hotep-ra. The gap, therefore, may have con- 
tained five or six names. The two hundred and fifty- 
one years of this dynasty cover the Sothiac month 
of Tybi and the greater part of Em-hir, during which 
Horus is daily rising nearer and nearer to the high- 
est point, the ab or ian, of his course in the upper 
hemisphere. For this reason we find titles com- 
pounded with cha, "rising," and ab, "heart" or 
"middle." I have already given my reasons for think- 
ing that Sochem-chu-taui-ra Sebku-hotep I was the first 
king of the Fifteenth Dynasty. If this view be cor- 
rect, we ought to find monuments of his reign in 
the Delta. Now remember that the preceding six- 
teen kings of the Thirteenth Dynasty, nine of whom 
appear on fragment 72 of the papyrus, have left no 
evidences of their reigns in the Delta, which cor- 
roborates and sustains Manetho throughout. Sebku- 
hotep I appears as a builder at Bubastis, where two 
lintel blocks bear his name. Is not this most re- 
markable? A Theban king, holding Memphis, and 
building temples at Btibastis, and, I might certainly 



304 A Self-Verifying Chronological 

add, Tanis, shortly after the Hyksos conquest, proves 
beyond a doubt that Manetho followed the contempo- 
rary monuments and the ancient histories preserved 
in the temples when he included these kings among 
the "Memphite kings" who reigned from 3894 B. C. 
to 2097 B. C. The first king on fragments 78 and 
79, Se-mench-ka-ra Emir-meshau, seems to have been 
a special favorite of the great Elamite king of kings. 
His name denotes that he was the general in com- 
mand of the army; for Emir, erroneously rendered 
mur and mer, is the identical word ''Emir" (ameer), 
used by the Turks to-day, just as SubUme Porte is 
a literal translation of Per-oa, or Pharaoh. As this 
army was composed, in part at least, of Hamites, 
"Emir-meshau" must have enjoyed the special con- 
fidence of the great king in Elam. As we have just 
said, the Theban kings profited greatly by becoming 
the representatives of this overwhelming power in 
the East. Now for the evidence: Two large statues 
of this king were found at Tanis, and, what is equally 
significant, the great Hyksos king, Apophis, caused 
his name to be engraved on them. This king, no 
doubt, enjoyed a long and prosperous reign, and his 
two successors in the papyrus, whose names are al- 
most entirely destroyed, do not seem to have be- 
longed to the genealogical line. 

Sebku-hotep II, known as Sochem-s^uot-tavii-ra, has 
left a number of monuments, and, from all appear- 
ances, was as powerful as Emir-meshau. 

His immediate successor, Cha-seshat-ra (Chasis- 
atraf) Nofer-hotep has also left beautiful statues and 



History of Ancient Egypt 305 

other monuments, and, no doubt, ruled Egypt from 
Nubia to Tanis. His son, Sa-hathor, seems to have 
had but a short reign. His successor, Sebku-hotep III 
Cha-nofer-ra, whose place is fixed by the papyrus 
and the Table of Karnak also, certainly held Tanis, 
as his granite statue, which still lies there, testifies. 
He seems to have been the most powerful king of 
this dynasty, as colossal statues of him have been 
found in Nubia, above the third cataract. These 
kings knew how to adapt themselves to the whims 
and fancies of the Hamite monarchs, who were, in- 
tellectually, much their inferiors, and the statue of 
Naram-sin proves that the art of this dynasty was 
copied in Babylonia. 

Cha-ka-ra, Sebku-hotep IV, and Cha-anch-ra Sebku- 
hotep Vy of the Table of Karnak — the corresponding 
part of the papyrus is lost — belong to the decline of 
this dynasty. I know of no monuments of either of 
these kings found in the Delta. We are unable to 
say how many names are lost at the end of the 
fragment 79, following Cha-nofer-ra. Manetho had 
eleven kings in this dynasty, which gives us an aver- 
age of about twenty-three years for each reign. The 
papyrus once contained the exact reign of each of 
these kings in years, months, and days, and likewise 
marked the epoch-kings of Tybi, 2304 B. C, and 
Emhir, 2184 B. C; but this portion was torn off, 
and is lost. As there were but forty-four years be- 
tween the beginning of this dynasty and the first 
epoch above named, it is possible that this epoch 
may have fallen near the end of fragment 76. 
20 



3o6 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

Manetho entered but one dynasty in his lists dur- 
ing this period. The pseudo-Sothis List has a Tanite 
Dynasty immediately before the Hyksos kings, which 
indicates that the Fifteenth Dynasty resided at Tanis, 
where they could be more effectually controlled by 
the Hamites. A systematic exploration of the ruins 
of Tanis may yet reveal many important facts con- 
cerning these kings and their immediate successors, 
the Hyksos kings. 

SIXTEENTH DYNASTY OE THIRTY-TWO THEBAID KINGS 

Following Manetho's order, we take up this dy- 
nasty before the Seventeenth, or Hyksos, Dynasty, 
both of which reigned contemporaneously for two 
hundred and sixty years, from 2097 B. C. to 1837 
B.C. 

The Sixteenth Dynasty was confined, like the 
early Eleventh Dynasty, to the Thebais. The tombs 
of its kings at Thebes succeed those of the Eleventh 
Dynasty, which makes it appear as if the Sixteenth 
Dynasty had immediately succeeded the Eleventh 
Dynasty. 

Thebes seems to have had no school of artists 
prior to this time, and the monuments of this dynasty 
are, therefore, imitations of the rude works of the 
Eleventh Dynasty. 

The great epoch of Phamenoth, 2064 B. C, when 
the sun of the Sothiac year, having reached the high- 
est point, sometimes called the ah, or middle, of his 
course in the upper hemisphere, turns, and begins to 
descend, fell in the thirty-fourth year of this dynasty. 



History of Ancient Egypt 307 

Fortunately, this portion of the papyrus, headed by 
Cha-hotep-ra, has survived, and we have the throne- 
titles of eight kings of this dynasty. The second 
king Uah-ab-ra lan-u-ab, ''The Mansion of the Heart 
of Ra" and "Turning the Heart," bears Sothiac titles 
marking him unmistakably as epoch-king of Pham- 
enoth, 2064 B. C. His successor, whose reign fol- 
lows the epoch, is designated as such by the words 
'^ari-en-ef em suteniu/' already explained, so that the 
chain of evidence is complete. 

It seems that the first kings of this dynasty were 
the successors of the kings of the Fifteenth Dynasty, 
and that they were not immediately molested by the 
Hyksos kings. Saites lived at Memphis, and made 
both the upper and lower regions pay tribute. He 
also placed garrisons in the most proper positions. 
One of these garrisons, in my opinion, was placed 
at Koptos, near Thebes, thus confining the Sixteenth 
Dynasty strictly to the Thebais, as indicated by Man- 
etho. 

The last Sebku-hotep, Cha-hotep-ra, reigned four 
years, eight months, and twenty-nine days. His title 
indicates that the "Rising" of Ra w^as accomplished, 
that is, "at peace." Uah-ab-ra, or, as I read it, Sochem- 
uah-ab-ra, reigned ten years, eight months, and 
twenty-eight days, which, I contend, extends to 2064 
B. C. 

Mer-nofer-ra, meaning "Loving the Perfection of 
Ra," reigned thirteen years, eight months, and eigh- 
teen days. As we have demonstrated, Horus attained 
his "perfection" at the summer solstice, when he be- 



3o8 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

came Ra, and this title is equally as significant as the 
others. 

These kings do not seem to have incurred the ill- 
will of the Hyksos monarchs; but the short reigns 
of their immediate successors point to war and dis- 
order. Mer-hotep-ra reigned two years, two months, 
and nine days; S'anch-en-ra, three years, two months, 
and ten days; Mer-sochem-ra, three years, one month, 
and ten days, etc. These reigns, compared to the 
forty-four years of Pa-ian and the sixty-one years 
of Apophis I, demonstrate, more plainly than words 
possibly could, the absolute truth of Manetho's state- 
ment: "And these six were the first rulers among 
them, who were all along making war with the 
Egyptians, and were very desirous gradually to 
destroy tkem to the very roots." 

The kings of the Fifteenth Dynasty enjoyed the 
semblance of royalty, and, at home, were more power- 
ful than their predecessors of the Thirteenth Dynasty 
had been. Neither the people nor the Pharaohs had 
any cause to complain of the sovereign in far-ofif 
Elam; but the condition of the unfortunate Theban 
*'hyks" of the Sixteenth Dynasty was humiliating and 
miserable indeed, and led to constant friction and 
disturbance. 

After Mer-nofer-ra, the papyrus shows us a series 
of kings who merely appear upon the throne to be 
hurled down again by the Hamite tyrants. Among 
these are two, Mer-hotep-ra and Mer-sochem-ra, who 
appear in the Table of Karnak. We need not wonder, 



History of Ancient Egypt 309 

therefore, that Manetho assigned thirty-two kings to 
this dynasty. 

Notwithstanding these unfavorable conditions, we 
find that all these reigns were carefully registered, 
even when they did not exceed a few months and 
days. The period of greatest depression must have 
been under Apophis I, for later on we find some 
reigns of normal length. Manetho opens his account 
of the Hyksos Dynasty by telling us that the first 
king, Saites, fortified the eastern frontier, foreseeing 
that the Babylonians would be desirous of that king- 
dom, and invade them. This language, coming from 
such a careful, truthful, and conservative authority, 
was certainly, by way of introduction to an account, 
farther on in his history, of an invasion of the Hyksos 
kingdom by the king of the Elamites and his subject- 
kings, such as the king of Shinar (afterwards Baby- 
lonia), etc. If such an invasion had not taken place, 
Manetho would not have used the word ''foreseeing^ 
While the Hyksos forces were employed and weak- 
ened in defending the Delta from foreign attack, the 
kings of Thebes enjoyed a period of comparative 
peace, during which they were able to recruit their 
strength, and prepare for the coming struggle. To 
the beginning of this dynasty we may assign the fol- 
lowing monumental kings : 

I. Sochem-uat-chau-ra Sehku-em-sa-uf. 

This king heads the third section of the right 
half of the Table of Karnak, and follows immediately 
after the Sehkvi-hotops of the Fifteenth Dynasty. Cha, 



3IO A Self-Verifying Chronological 

"rising," is still an element in his throne-title, but 
we must not forget that there were thirty-three years 
of the month of Emhir (2097 to 2064 B. C.) in this 
dynasty, and that the fourteen years of Cha-hotep-ra 
and Sochem-uah-ab-ra, the latter of whom ''turned 
the heart of Ra," leave the first nineteen years, cor- 
responding to the nineteen years of Saites, unpro- 
vided for. I follow the Table of Karnak in giving 
this king the first place, although we know that the 
most distinguished series are grouped around the 
standing figures of Thothmes ITT, and the less noted 
kings arranged around them at random. The tomb 
of this king was at Thebes, and, although its location 
is not known, Arabs must have found it, for objects 
usually buried with the mummy have been sold, and 
remain to attest the fact. The throne-title of this 
king, its form and arrangement, and the element 
Sehku in his name, all show that he immediately suc- 
ceeded the last king of the F'ifteenth Dynasty. 

2. Sochem-nah-chau-ra Ra-hotep. 

A broken tablet, set up by this king, was found 
at Koptos. But as this dynasty was set up by the 
Hyksos kings, to govern the Land of the South and 
collect and pay over the revenues, there would be 
no inconsistency in the king restoring the temple o£ 
Men at Koptos, and setting up a memorial of the fact. 

3. Sochem-shedi-taui-ra S ehku-em-sa-uf . 

The royal commission appointed by Ramesses X 
(?) reported that it had examined the tomb of this 
king at Thebes, and that it had been broken into, 
and the mummy destroyed. It is probable that this 



HisTOR V OF Ancient Eg ypt 3 1 1 

king ought to be placed after the kings named on 
fragment 81 of the papyrus, beginning with Cha- 
hotep-ra^ whose position, chronologically, admits of 
no doubt, because inscriptions of a much later date 
mention the fourteenth year of King Ra-hotep. 

The thieves who had rifled the tomb of Sebku-em- 
sauf confessed that, when they had effected an en- 
trance, they found the sepulchral chamber protected 
by masonry and covered with roofing. After these 
had been destroyed, they opened the sarcophagi and 
coffins in which the mummies of the king and queen 
had reposed for nearly nine centuries. Beside the 
mummy of the king they found his divine ax. The 
head was overlaid with gold, and the body, also, was 
covered with gold. Around the neck were many 
amulets and ornaments of gold. The coffins were 
burnished with gold and inlaid with precious stones. 
The thieves stole everything that was valuable, in- 
cluding the vases of gold, silver, and bronze, and 
other tomb furniture, and then set fire to the coffins. 
Is it a wonder that, in all after ages, the royal tombs 
continually excited the cupidity of such sacrilegious 
wretches as these? 

4. Sochem-nofer-chau-ra Up-uat-em-saiif. 

It is probable that the throne-title of this king 
was among the destroyed ovals of the Table of Kar- 
nak. In type it is closely related to the foregoing. 
In form it seems to precede Cha-hotep-ra, for Nofer- 
chau, which indicates that the "Rising" of Ra was 
"perfected" when this king was crowned, is but an- 
other form of Cha-hotep-ra. 



312 A ^elf-Verifying Chronological 

The name itself, ''Upon the way as Saviour," re- 
minds us of the Eleventh Dynasty. It was natural 
for these kings, who were brought into direct con- 
tact with the memorials of the Theban rulers of the 
Eleventh Dynasty, to pattern their names and titles 
after those of the first Theban rulers. 

According to the author of Genesis, Noah, or 
Thebes, survived three hundred and fifty years after 
the Flood. We might be tempted to assume that 
this number was two hundred and fifty years orig- 
inally, although the total of nine hundred and fifty 
years for the entire duration of the first Theban 
Government requires three hundred and fifty years. 

The fragments of the papyrus show no break be- 
tween the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Dynasties. When 
Saites was made king of Egypt, with Memphis as 
his capital, the old line was simply forced back into 
the Thebaid. But it is probable that, one hundred 
years later, or about 1997 B. C, a collateral line from 
El-kab, or vicinity, supplanted the original Theban 
Hne. It would almost appear as if Apophis I, about 
this time, had taken possession of Thebes and sup- 
pressed the old line. It is certain that the later 
kings of this dynasty had some connection with the 
great fortress of el-Kab, the walls of which, more 
than twelve yards thick, inclosed a square, each side 
of which was more than six hundred and fifty yards 
in length. There were wars between the Hyksos 
kings and Theban rulers before the great insurrec- 
tion mentioned by Manetho. Theban successes led 
to the insurrection, which occurred under Apophis II, 



HiSTOR Y OF Ancient Eg ypt 3 1 3 

the last Hyksos king. Se-kennen-ra and Apophis II 
both bore the title Oa-ken-en, which is a strong indi- 
cation of contemporaneity. 

Towards the close of this dynasty I am inclined 
to place the following monumental kings, under 
whom the rule of Thebes was extended northwardly 
beyond Abydus : 

1. Neb-cher-ra Menthuhotep. 

It was formerly supposed that this king belonged 
to the Eleventh Dynasty, but the formation of his 
titles does not agree with this hypothesis. He was 
a powerful and aggressive ruler. During his long 
and vigorous reign of forty-one years, Upper Egypt 
was restored to power and confidence, and the foun- 
dations of the War of Liberation were laid and 
cemented. After-ages singled him out as the great 
hero of the period, and his name was placed along- 
side those of Mena, Senoferu, and Aahmes. The 
royal commission above mentioned examined his 
brick pyramid, at Thebes, and found it to be intact. 
The reign of this king apparently coincides with the 
first forty years of the reign of the Hyksos king, 
Cha-ian, Manetho's "lannos." 

2. Nuh-cheper-ra Antef. 

The last five kings in the Table of Karnak are: 

Neb-cher-ra 

Nub-cheper-ra 

User-en-ra (comp. Se-user-en-ra) 

Se-necht-en-ra and 

Se-ken-en-ra 

These five, I am convinced, represent a genealog- 



314 ^ Self- Verifying Chronological 

ical series. Thus fragment 63 of the papyrus contains, 
in immediate succession, Neb-cher-ra and Se-user- 
en-ra. 

As might have been foreseen, we find Nub- 
cheper-ra Antef active at Koptos, where he deposed 
a high official for harboring enemies in the tem- 
ple. Is it not probable that these enemies were 
Hyksos? 

The tomb of this king was among those visited 
and inspected by the commission of Ramesses X. 
It was found to be uninjured. The names Menthu- 
hotep and Antef need not astonish us here; they ap- 
pear again and again during the Hyksos period, and 
were assumed by these kings to inspire awe and re- 
spect. 

3. Se-user-en~ra, 

This title is written User-en-ra in the Table, but 
this may be a mistake, owing to the following name 
having the initial ^S*^. The Hyksos king, Cha-ian, 
bore the same throne-title, to wit, Se-user-en-ra, which, 
of itself, marks them as contemporaries. I place this 
short reign towards the close of Cha-ian's reign. 

4. Se-neckt-en-ra. 

No monuments of this king have yet been found. 

5. Se-ken-en-ra, 

There were several kings who bore this title. A 
separate tomb of Se-ken-en-ra Ta-oa, that is, "Ta, 
the Great," is mentioned in the Abbott papyrus. The 
tomb of Se-ken-en-ra Ta-oa-oa, that is, "Ta, the Very 
Great," also mentioned in this papyrus, and separately 
examined by the commission, belongs, in my opinion. 



HiSTOR Y OF Ancient Eg ypt 315 

to Ta-oa-ken, '^Ta, the Great and Brave," for da-da 
is augmentative only, and equivalent to da-ken. 

The mummy of Ta-oa-ken, showing the marks of 
deadly wounds received on the field of battle, was 
found at Deir-el-bahri, and can now be seen in the 
Cairo Museum. His antagonist, Apophis II, bore the 
same title, Oa-ken. 

THE HYKSOS DYNASTY OF SIX KINGS 

We have just followed the Sixteenth Dynasty of 
Theban kings from 2097 B. C. to 1837 B. C. Let 
us now retrace our steps, go back to 2097 B. C, 
and take up the great Hyksos Dynasty of six kings, 
which reigned contemporaneously with the Sixteenth 
Dynasty. After describing the Hamite invasion, 
Manetho says: 

"At length they made one of themselves king, 
whose name was Saites; he also lived at Memphis, 
and made both the upper and lower regions pay 
tribute, and left garrisons in places that were the 
most proper for them. He chiefly aimed to secure 
the eastern parts, foreseeing that the Assyrians, who 
then had the greatest power, would be desirous of 
that kingdom, and invade them; and, as he found in 
the Saite nome a city very proper for his purpose, 
and which lay upon the Bubastic channel, but, with 
regard to a certain theologic notion, was called Avaris, 
this he rebuilt, and made very strong by the walls 
he built about it, and by a most numerous garrison 
of 240,000 armed men, whom he put into it to keep 
it. Thither Saites came in the summer time, partly 
to gather his corn and pay his soldiers their wages, 
and partly to exercise his armed men and thereby 
to terrify foreigners." 



3i6 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

We have already seen how loyal the Fifteenth 
Dynasty was to the king of the Elamites, and that 
the establishment of a dynasty in Egypt by the Hyk- 
sos was equivalent to a declaration of independence 
upon their part. It was for this reason that Saites, 
or Seth, found it necessary to rebuild and fortify 
Avaris, and to put into it a garrison of 240,000 men. 
Manetho leaves us in no doubt as to the purpose of 
this; for he tells us that Saites aimed to secure the 
eastern frontier, foreseeing that the Elamites and 
their Babylonian subjects, here called Assyrians, 
would be desirous of his kingdom, and invade it, and 
further, that Saites publicly exercised his great force 
of 240,000 armed men to terrify foreigners. I re- 
peat this because it is generally assumed, I can not 
see why, that this immense army was maintained in 
order to terrify and hold in subjection the native 
Egyptians. It is true that he left garrisons in the 
most proper places for them in Egypt, but it is equally 
true that he did not apprehend much danger from 
that side. Although two hundred and fifty-one years 
had elapsed since the original Hamite Invasion of 
2348 B. C, the foreigners settled in the Delta were 
still the dominating element in Egypt, and we are 
surprised to find them numerous enough to furnish 
such armies. 

This dynasty is the Biblical Mizraim. It is re- 
markable that Moses calls Mizraim a son of Ham, 
and not a son of No-da, or Thebes. This is because 
the Hyksos Government was not derived from the 
Theban Government, but from the Hamite, which 



History OF Ancient Egypt 317 

was established at Tanis, on the Egyptian model, 
one hundred years before the Flood. Saites, there- 
fore, although Hamite by race, was a genuine Egyp- 
tian Pharaoh, holding his court at the old capital, 
Memphis, and in opposition to the Suzerain in dis- 
tant Elam. Assyriologists have discovered inscrip- 
tions which place the date of Kudur-nanchimdi, an 
Elamite conqueror, at about 2286 B. C. When Assur- 
bani-pal took Susiana, the capital of Elam, about 651 
B. C, he brought back from that city an image of 
Ishtar, which had been carried off from the city of 
Erech by Kudur-nanchundi. He tells us that the god- 
dess Ishtar had been desecrated, and dwelt in a place 
unsuitable for her, for 1,635 years. This number, 
which carries us back to about 2286 B. C, shows 
that the Babylonians, in the time of Assurbanipal 
had records which were considered to be accurate 
enough to fix, within a year, the date of this ancient 
event. In fact, although 2286 B. C. appears very 
ancient to us, 1,635 years may not have been so re- 
garded by the scribes and learned men of Babylonia. 
Thus we find that, about sixty-two years after the 
'Aamu conquest of Egypt, an Elamite king, bearing 
a name very similar to that of Kudur-lagomar, was in 
possession of Erech, in Babylonia, a city mentioned 
as one of the capitals of Nimrod, the grandson of 
Ham. We are accustomed to identify Elam with 
Persia, but the name Elamu turns out to be a literal 
translation of Akkadians, or "Highlanders." The 
'Aamu came from the highlands, east of Babylonia, 
and took possession of the plains of Babylonia. They 



3i8 A Self- Verifying Chronologicai 

fixed their capital at Shushan, or Susiana. The prin- 
cipal nation among them was called Kashi, Kushi, 
Kossi, Kissi, etc. When we read of the Akkadians, 
Akkadian language, and Akkadian literature, there- 
fore, we must bear in mind that Elam and Akkad are 
synonymous, and that Kush is a ''son of Ham." 

At the time of the Hamite invasion of Egypt 
there was, in Western Asia, an empire with its capital 
in Elam, dominating an expanse of territory larger 
than that subjected by Cyrus. It is hard for any one, 
who has been trained from early infancy to believe 
in the destruction of mankind by a Hteral flood of 
waters, to accept, and accustom himself to, this fact. 
The Elamites, or 'AamUy ruled this entire region 
about 1 92 1 B. C, when Abraham migrated, un- 
molested, from Ur of the Chaldees to Canaan. The 
recent dicovery of the Tel-el-Amarna clay-tablets 
proves that as late as 1650 B. C. the language and 
writing of Babylonia were in general use in Canaan. 
According to Eusebius, Berossos called the invaders 
''Medes," and assigned to them two dynasties, the 
first of which had eight kings, who reigned two hun- 
dred and twenty-four years, and the second of which 
had eleven kings, who reigned forty-eight years. I 
venture to predict that the last number was originally 
one hundred and forty-eight years, which would place 
the beginning of Median, or Elamite, domination over 
Babylonia at 2348 B. C, the same year in which the 
Elamite conquest of Egypt took place. 

The reader will pardon this digression, which was 
necessary to establish the literal truth of Manetho's 



History of Ancient Egypt 319 

statement that the Assyrians, meaning the Elamites 
and their allies, then had the greatest power in Asia, 
that is, about 2097 B. C. The capture of Erech by 
Kudur-nanchundi, about 2286 B. C, will also throw 
a welcome ray of light upon the expedition into 
Egypt, made by these same people sixty-two years 
before that date, and assist us in freeing our minds 
of many erroneous impressions in regard to the so- 
called Hyksos conquest of Egypt, which differed but 
little from the so-called Median conquest of Baby- 
lonia. 

Before pursuing this subject further, we will now 
address ourselves to the exact chronology of this 
dynasty, which (thanks to the excellent list trans- 
mitted by Josephus, although with some errors as 
to the names and the order of the kings), is as ac- 
curate as that of the Twenty-sixth Dynasty. We 
now give the Lists of Africanus, Josephus, and Euse- 
bius, and the pseudo-Sothis List : 

I,IST OlC'AIfRlCANUS 

Years. Months. 

1. Saites, 19 

2. Beon, 44 

3. Pachnan, 61 

4. Staan, 50 

5. Archies, 49 

6. Aphobis, (36) 61 

I^IST OF JOSEPHUS 

1. Salatis (Saites), 19 

2. Beon (Baian), 44 

3. Apachnas, 36 7 

4. Apophis, 61 

5. lanias, 50 i 

6. Assis, 49 2 



320 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

Years. Months. 
I.IST OF EUSEBIUS 

1. Saites, 19 

2. Beon (Bnon), 40 

3. Aphophis, 14 

4. Archies, 30 

PSKUDO-SOTHIS WST 

1. Silites, the first of the six kings of the Sev- 

enteenth Dynasty, according to Manetho, 19 

2. Baion, 44 

3. Apachnas, 36 

4. Aphophis, 61 

5. Sethos, 50 

6. Kertos, 29 

7. Aseth, 20 

Although all of these lists have been changed, 
more or less, each of them has preserved at least one 
important item not to be found in the others. Not- 
withstanding these changes, Saites and Ba-ion are the 
first two kings in all the lists. We have already shown 
that this dynasty commenced to reign about 2097 
B. C. The great epoch of Phamenoth, when the 
sun reversed his course, fell in the year 2064 B. C, 
or thirty-three years later. Now, as Saites reigned 
nineteen years, a simple calculation will show that 
the first fourteen years of Ba-ion's reign belong to 
the month of Emhir — the month of rohk-ur, "great 
heat;" and the remaining thirty years of his reign 
to Phamenoth — the month of rohk-nes, or rohk-ks, 
"little heat." Thus this great epoch-king was en- 
titled to such epoch-titles as Pa-ian (Die Wende) 
and Rochles, "Little Heat." F'ortunately, the forger 
of the pseudo-Sothis List, and Eusebius also, often 
used epoch-reigns in preference to real reigns, when 



History of Ancient Egypt 321 

they happened to suit their chronological schemes. 
Eusebius followed the so-called Old (?) Chronicle, 
which gave the Hyksos Dynasty only one hundred 
and three years. After entering Saites with nineteen 
years and Beon with forty years, he gives Apophis, 
who reigned sixty-one years, the fourteen years of 
Paian before the epoch, followed by Rochles, "Little 
Heat," with the thirty years of Pa-ian after the epoch. 
This accurate Sothiac division of Pa-ians reign did 
not originate with Eusebius, but was copied, by some 
one, from Manetho. We have just seen that the reign 
of Uah-ab-ra lan-ah was divided in the same way by 
the author of the Turin papyrus prior to 1584 B. C. 
I imagine that Manetho's chronological list presented 
some such form as this : 

Saites, 19 years 

Pa-ian, before epoch, 14 years ) ^^ 

Pa-ian, as *' Rochles," 30 " ] ^ 

At first view, Archies and Rohk-nes seem to have 
little in common, but it is very easy to follow the 
successive steps of the transformation. Rohk-ur was 
transformed into Rokchoris, preserving both the k 
and ch sounds. In certain combinations n became / 
in certain Egyptian words: for instance, Manetho 
transcribes Utnas, ''Utlas." We can assume that he, 
in the same manner, converted Rochnes into 
"Rochles." The transcribers and copyists did the 
rest. Did not Josephus, innocently enough, convert 
Ramesses into "Armesses?" Applying the same 
evolutionary process to Rochles, we have, ftrst, 
Arochles, and, finally (dropping the 0), "Archies." 



21 



322 A Self-Verifying Chronological 

In this particular instance the transformation admits 
of no doubt, otherwise there are many who might 
feel inclined, for special reasons, to question it. There 
were two epochs in this dynasty, and the epoch-reigns 
have been the principal cause of most of the confusion 
now apparent in the lists, for, as there were but six 
kings in the dynasty, each epoch-title inserted in the 
lists necessarily crowded out the name of one of the 
kings. 

The ancient division of the reign of Ba-ion by 
the epoch 2064 B. C, proves that the date 2097 B. C. 
for the beginning of the dynasty is astronomically 
correct. 

The fact that Eusebius, after entering Baion 
separately, gave the first fourteen years of his reign 
to Apophis, shows that Apophis was the third king, 
who reigned sixty-one years. When we analyze the 
strange conglomerate ''Apachnas," it resolves itself 
into the initial Ap, of Apophis, and Archnas, after- 
wards further corrupted into Achnas. Apachnas, 
therefore, is simply a blending of Apophis and Rach- 
nas, which Manetho may have given in the two forms, 
Rochnas and Rochles. We find that Africanus (al- 
though some one has changed his list by substituting 
'Tachnan" for Apophis) gives the third king, Apo- 
phis I, whose throne-title was Oa-user-ra, a reign of 
sixty-one years. The epoch-reigns demonstrate that 
this was his correct reign, and that the thirty-six 
years and seven months given to the third king, 
Apachnes, in the List of Josephus and in the pseudo- 
Sothis List, belong to Apophis II, the last king of 



History of Ancient Egypt 323 

this dynasty. The question arises : How could Jose- 
phus make this mistake if he actually copied the list 
from the second book of Manetho's history? It will 
be seen that Josephus gives Apophis sixty-one years, 
although he places him fourth instead of third. It 
will also be seen that two epoch-titles, Rochles, now 
Apachnas, and Asas, now Assis, have found their 
way into the List of Josephus, necessarily crowding 
out the names of two of the kings, to wit, Sethos and 
Apophis 11. Now^, it is evident that the original six 
reigns had to be preserved intact in order to foot up 
the required total of two hundred and fifty-nine years 
and ten months. As these mistakes could not have 
existed in Manetho's work, it follows that Josephus 
used an extract from Manetho's work made by some 
one else. Before we take up the last three reigns, 
the reader will notice that the pseudo-Sothis List 
divides the reign of forty-nine years and two months, 
given by Africanus to Archies, and by Josephus to 
Assis, into two parts, to wit, Kertos, twenty-nine 
years, and Aseth, twenty years. In this list, and the 
list of Josephus also, Apachnas has displaced Apo- 
phis; consequently Sethos, who follows Apophis, 
must likewise be out of place. The name Sethos, 
Kertos, Assis, and Aseth represent but two names 
originally, namely. Set and As-as. 

In the list of Africanus, Staan, who follows Apo- 
phis, was originally Set-aan, the Sethos of the pseudo- 
Sothis List, and the an-nub ... of fragment 112 
of the Turin papyrus. Thus Sethos, the Set-an (Satan) 
of Africanus, was the fourth king of this dynasty, and 



324 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

follows Apophis I. This is verified to a certainty by 
the division of his reign into twenty-nine years be- 
fore, and twenty years after, the epoch of Pharmuthi, 
1944 B. C. 

Epoch of Phamenoth, . . 2064 B. C. 

Archies, . .30 years 

Apophis I Oa-useVy ... 61 " 

Sethos, before epoch, , . 29 " 120 

Epoch of Pharmuthi, . . 1944 B. C. 

Sethos, after epoch, as 

AsaSy 20 " 2 months 

lanias, 50 " i " 

Apophis II Oa-ken-en, . . 36 " 7 " 

Aahmes, as Chebros, ... 13 " 2 " 120 

Epoch of Pachons, . . . 1824 B. C. 

We have already seen that As, "ancient," and 
As-as (Assis), "very ancient," are titles applied to 
Ra, after he has passed the zenith, and begins to 
approach the western horizon. The epoch-king of 
3404 B. C. bore the title Psamuthis, and we have 
already explained how it was derived and what it 
means. It is evident that Assis and Aseth are simply 
forms of the epoch-title of Sethos, who was the cele- 
brated Set-nub-ti of the "Tablet of Four Hundred 
Years." 

The last king in the list of Africanus is Apophis, 
but, by mistake or subsequent change, he has the sixty- 
one years of Apophis I instead of his own reign of 
thirty-six years. We now know from the Sallier 
papyrus that the name of the last Hamite king, who 
reigned contemporaneously with Taa-oa-ken, was 
Apophis. 



History of Ancient Egypt 325 

The fifth king, lanias, the immediate predecessor 
of Apophis II, has materialized in a most unexpected 
manner. A seated statue of an Egyptian Pharaoh 
was recently discovered at Bubastis by Naville. It 
bears the name of CUan, or Cha-ian, which was first 
read Ra-ian, by mistaking the sign of the sieve for 
the sign of the sun, both of which are circles very 
much alike. His throne-title, as king of Upper and 
Lower Egypt, was Se-user-en-ra, which we have al- 
ready alluded to in the Sixteenth Dynasty. The 
name of this king has also come down to us on two 
cylinders and a number of scarabs, where it some- 
times appears as Sa-ra Cha-ian and Hyk-satu Cha-ian. 
1 have already explained that Hyk-satu means "King 
of foreign countries," and is the title rendered Hyk- 
sos by Manetho. Petrie, therefore, is in error when 
he seeks to place this king between the Sixth and 
Twelfth Dynasties. The style of the statue stamps it 
as a work of the Hyksos period, for it differs but 
little in style and design from the well-known statues 
of the kings of the Fifteenth Dynasty. 

We have seen that in the Table of Karnak the last 
three kings in the genealogical line are Se-user-en-ra^ 
Se-necht-en-ra, and Se-ken-en-ra, and that the two 
kings bearing the title Se-user-en-ra must have been 
contemporaries. 

Now, let us see how the above chronological ar- 
rangement agrees with the monuments. We have an 
excellent description of Saites from Manetho, and he 
appears simply as Set on fragment 150 of the Turin 
papyrus. It is probable that, like Unas and Teta, he 



326 A Self-Verifying Chronological 

bore no other title. The name Set was assumed in 
honor of the Hamite and Cushite deity, Sutech, who 
thus usurped the place of Ra. Baion, Beon, etc., 
stand for Pa-ian, the epoch- title of the second king; 
but it is not certain that this was his name; his throne- 
title on fragment 150 of the papyrus is Annu, .... 
Apophis I is dintinguished by the throne-title Oa-user. 

Sethos is mentioned in the "Tablet of Four Hun- 
dred Years," where his name is written Set-nubti, and 
his throne-title Oa-pahu-ti. I am convinced that Set- 
mibti, the Nubian Set, or golden Set, is synonymous 
with Set-an, for. the reason that the inhabitants of 
Nubia were called the An. It seems that the Egyp- 
tian Set and the Hamite Sutech, when blended, be- 
came Sef-nubti or Set-an— that is, Typhonic Set — the 
adversary of Osiris, who was, therefore, identified 
with Apap, or Apophis, the giant snake, the Egyptian 
symbol of wickedness. All this agrees perfectly with 
the fact that the Hamite invaders of Egypt were ser- 
pent-worshipers. 

According to the pseudo-Sothls List, Aseth— that 
is, Sethos — the epoch-king, added five intercalary 
days to the year. If so, the invaders must have used 
a year of three hundred and sixty days prior to that 
time. Be this as it may, he is now known to have 
done more than this, for he established an era, known 
as the era of King Set-niihti, which dated from the 
epoch 1944 B. C. In the beginning of the reign of 
Ramesses II, shortly after the death of Seti I, ten 
Sothiac weeks, or four hundred years, had elapsed 
since this era was established, and the "Tablet of Four 



History of Ancient Egypt 327 

Hundred Years" was set up in the year 1544 B. C, 
to commemorate this important event. History re- 
peats itself, as we shall see, for Solomon's temple was 
erected twelve Sothiac weeks, or four hundred and 
eighty years, after the Exodus, so that there were 
nine hundred and thirty-three years from the era of 
Set-nubti to the building of the temple. 

I attach a great deal of importance to the fact that 
the reformation of the year is ascribed to Ases, and 
not to Sethos, because this shows that it dates from 
the epoch, and not from the beginning of the reign 
of Sethos. The four hundred years of the tablet also 
prove that the era was connected with a Sothiac 
epoch, for the Sothiac year, or cycle, was divided into 
Sothiac months of one hundred and twenty years, 
and these months were again divided into Sothiac 
weeks of forty years. 

We need not repeat that this tablet with ten 
Sothiac weeks conclusively demonstrates that the 
Hyksos Dynasty of six kings, which reigned two hun- 
dred and fifty-nine years and ten months, was not 
succeeded by another Hyksos period of two hundred 
and fifty-one years, as Josephus, or the epitomists 
from whom he copied, would lead us to believe. Is 
this the reason that the tablet, like other monuments 
of the same import, disappeared so soon after its dis- 
covery? There are necessarily one hundred and 
twenty years between this era and the epoch of Pa- 
chons, 1824 B. C. Manetho gave the Eighteenth 
Dynasty, to the death of Seti I, two hundred and 
sixty-three years after this epoch. Thus there were 



328 A Self-Verifying Chronological 

exactly three hundred and eighty-three years from 
the era of Set-nubti to the death of Seti I, and the 
tablet was erected in the eighteenth year of the reign 
of Ramesses II. Could anything be plainer? Are 
we not face to face with a mathematical demonstra- 
tion? And yet there were many who doubted the 
discoveries of Copernicus and Newton. 

Suppose, for example, you were to place a period 
of two hundred and fifty-one years between the Hyk- 
sos Dynasty and the Eighteenth Dynasty, you would 
have: 

From era to end of Hyksos Dynasty, 107 years 

Assumed period, 251 " 

Chebros, 13 " 

Eighteenth Dynasty, 263 " 

Total. 634 " 

These figures require no commentary. By plac- 
ing the period of two hundred and fifty-one years 
before the two hundred and sixty years of the Hyksos 
Dynasty, we have five hundred and eleven years for 
the Hamite domination, and four hundred years from 
the era of Set-nubti to the eighteenth year of Ramesses 
II, by whose order the tablet was erected. 

These four hundred years are significant in an- 
other respect : they correspond approximately to the 
four hundred and thirty years between the arrival 
of Abram in Canaan, which event is correctly fixed 
by the Bible chronographers at 1921 B. C, and the 
Exodus, which, I am prepared to say, occurred about 
1491 B. C. 



History of Ancient Egypt 329 

Abram visited Egypt in the beginning of the reign 
of the Hyksos King Cha-ian — that is, about twenty- 
three years after the epoch which served as the begin- 
ning point of the era of Set-nubti, and the period of 
four hundred and thirty years extends fifty-three years 
beyond the period of four hundred years. The be- 
havior of Pharaoh toward his guest was contrary to 
Egyptian manners, but perfectly in accord with Ham- 
ite customs. George Smith (''Assyrian Discoveries," 
page 421) describes a stone lion found in an excava- 
tion at Bagdad. The name and titles of Set-nubti are 
carved on the breast of this sphinx. Smith supposed 
that Set-nubti was the monarch called Saites by Man- 
etho; but this is an evident mistake. The lion cor- 
roborates Manetho and the Tablet of Four Hundred 
Years as to the reign of the Hyksos King Sethos. 

lonias, or lannas, is no longer a mere name, since 
the seated statue of Bubastis has come to light. 
When Abram and his picturesque company from dis- 
tant Chaldea appeared before Chaian, the latter had 
just commenced his long reign of fifty years and one 
month, and shone forth in all the splendor and mag- 
nificence of youthful strength and vigor. It is not 
probable that Asia at this time heard much of the 
tributary Hyks at Thebes, and yet I am satisfied that 
the Hyksos Government suffered a severe reverse 
near the close of the reign of Apophis I, and that the 
subjection of Canaan by Kudur-lagomar and the mi- 
gration of Abram's family were closely connected 
with it. According to the numbers of Berossos, the 
second Median Dynasty was succeeded by Babylonian 



330 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

kings about 1976 B. C, or three years before the ac- 
cession of Set-nubti. 

A 

Apophis II, Oa-ken-en, was the sixth and last king 
of this dynasty. He caused his name and titles to be 
carved on the right shoulder of the statues of Emir- 
meshau, lying among the ruins of Tanis. As we have 
remarked hereinabove, this fact indicates that the 
Hyksos kings regarded their predecessors of the Fif- 
teenth Dynasty with no special ill-will; otherwise they 
would not have tolerated their statues in the temples 
at Tanis. A granite altar of this king, now in the 
Cairo Museum, contains his Horus and throne titles, 
to wit : Har Se-hotep tavd, King, etc., Oa-ken-en-ra. In 
the inscription upon it, he claims to have erected 
monuments to his father, ''Set, Lord of Avaris" {Set, 
neb Haet-uar-et), which is important in connection 
with the statements of the Sallier papyrus in the Brit- 
ish Museum: 

"It came to pass that the land of Kemi was a prey 
to the enemies. And no one was lord or king at that 
time. There was, indeed, a king, Sekenen-ra, at that 
time; but he was only a hyk of the city of the south. 
And the enemies in the cities were the 'Aamu, and 
Apophis was king in the city of Avaris. And the 
whole land brought him its productions, and the 
north country likewise with the good things of Ta- 
mera. And the king, Apophis, chose Set as his divine 
lord, and he did not serve any other god of the whole 
land except Set. He built for him a temple of glori- 
ous work to last for ages. And King Apophis ap- 
pointed feasts and days upon which to offer sacrifice 
to Set, and the chiefs of the king wore garlands, as is 
done in the temples of Ra Harmachis." 



History of Ancient Egypt 331 

It may be that the granite altar above-mentioned 
was dedicated to Set, and placed in this identical tem- 
ple. Apophis II seems to have gone farther than any 
of his predecessors in his devotion to the Hamite 
deity, Sutech, or Set. He not only chose Sutech as 
his "lord god" (a purely Hamite notion), but refused 
to worship any other god. 

The "enemies" who had established themselves in 
the Delta are expressly called 'Aamu. Apophis, their 
king, seems to have abandoned Memphis, and to have 
made Avaris his capital. 

Brugsch understood the papyrus to state that the 
tyrant Apophis had sent messages to Sekenen-ra, re- 
quiring the latter to worship Sutech alone, and give 
up the worship of the Egyptian gods. No doubt this 
was the straw that broke the camel's back. Of course, 
Sekenen-ra could not, dare not, obey this order. To 
worship Sutech, or Set-an, instead of Amen, would be 
equivalent at Thebes to worshiping Satan. Sekenen- 
ra' s refusal to give up the worship of Amen excited 
the animosity of the tyrant of Avaris, and he sought 
a pretext for war. The papyrus further relates that 
many days after these events King Apophis sent to 
the Hyk of the city of the South a certain message, 
which his scribes had drawn up for him. When the 
messenger had delivered the message, Sekenen-ra 
asked him: "Who hath sent thee hither to this city 
of the South? Art thou come in order to spy out?" 

For a long time the unfortunate Hyk was troubled 
so that he could not answer the messenger of King 
Apophis. After he had replied and the messenger 



332 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

had departed, he called his great men and his cap- 
tains and generals under him, and communicated to 
them all the messages which the tyrant Apophis had 
sent him. But they were all silent through great 
grief, and did not know what to answer. 

It is plain that they all understood that war, with 
all its horrors, was at the door. Although the papy- 
rus breaks off at this point, there can be no doubt that 
the subject of the composition was the great war of 
liberation, and that what we have was merely intro- 
ductory to this war. We now supply an outline of 
the remainder from Manetho as transmitted by Jo- 
sephus : 

"After these, he says that the kings of the Thebais 
and of the other parts of Egypt made an insurrection 
against the Hyksos, and that a terrible and long war 
was made between them. He says further that, under 
a king whose name was Alisphragmuthosis, the Hyk- 
sos were subdued by him, and were, indeed, driven 
out of other parts of Egypt, but were shut up in a 
place that contained ten thousand acres; this place 
was named Avaris. Manetho says that the shepherds 
built a wall round all this place, which was a large 
and strong wall, and this in order to keep all their 
possessions and their prey within a place of strength; 
but that Thummosis, the son of Alisphragmuthosis, 
made an attempt to take them by force and by siege, 
with 480,000 men to lie round about them; but that, 
upon his despair of taking the place by that siege, 
they came to a composition with them, that they 
should leave Egypt, and go without any harm to be 
done them, whithersoever they would ; and that, after 
this composition was made, they went away with their 
whole families and effects not fewer in number than 



History of Ancient Egypt 333 

240,000, and took their journey from Egypt, through 
the wilderness for Syria; but that, as they were in fear 
of the Assyrians, who then had the dominion over 
Asia, they built a city in that country which is now 
called Judea, and that large enough to contain this 
great number of men, and called it Jerusalem." 

After a digression, Josephus says that when this 
people, or shepherds, were gone out of Egypt to 
Jerusalem, Tethmoses, the king of Egypt, who drove 
them out, reigned afterward twenty-five years and 
four months, and then died, etc. 

Knowing, as we do now, that it was Aahmes who 
drove them out and took the city of Avaris, we are 
in a condition to say that the supposed quotation from 
Manetho's history is, in fact, nothing but a confused 
summary of Manetho's account of the expulsion of 
the Hyksos, interspersed with passages taken from 
a later portion of his work referring, most probably, 
to the Exodus. The joint reign of Mephra and Tuth- 
mosis has been changed to Mephragmuthosis, which 
has a close resemblance to Alisphragmuthosis ; yet we 
are told that Thummosis, afterwards called Teth- 
mosis, who drove them out, was the son of Alisphrag- 
muthosis. It will not escape notice that the compo- 
sition between Thummosis and the Hyksos, by which 
they left Egypt voluntarily with their families and 
their effects, does not apply to the Hyksos, but to the 
Exodus, the description of which was in this manner 
expunged from Manetho's work. Manetho had just 
described where the city of Avaris was situated, and 
how it was fortified by Saites, and we have just seen 



334 ^ Self- Verifying Chronological 

that Apophis II, against whom this war was waged, 
resided in Avaris. Why, then, should Manetho, at 
this time, repeat that the shepherds were shut up in 
a place containing ten thousand acres which was 
named Avaris, and that they built a large and strong 
wall around it. The expression, ''Tethmosis, the king 
of Egypt, who drove them out," shows that Manetho 
had just described how they had been driven out by 
Aahmes, who may have also been called Thothmes, 
which is another form of Aahmes. This forcible ex- 
pulsion agrees with the actual facts, and demonstrates 
that the story of the peaceable withdrawal under a 
composition was taken from another part of the work, 
and interpellated here. If Josephus ever saw Man- 
etho's work, and did not use an extract made by some 
one else, he must have written this portion from 
memory. The monuments inform us that the insur- 
rection did not break out until the reign of Seken- 
en-ra, and that the Hyksos were expelled by Aahmes, 
who seems to have been his lineal descendant, al- 
though not his immediate successor. Now, substi- 
tuting these names for those now in Manetho's 
account, we find that the kings of Thebes and other 
parts of Egypt make an insurrection against the 
Hyksos. We do not know who these other kings 
were. A long and terrible war results. Under a 
king, we will say the second Sekenen-ra, the Hyksos 
were subdued and driven out of the other parts of 
Egypt, and forced to seek refuge in the city of Avaris. 
Sekenen-ra falls upon the field of battle. He is suc- 
ceeded by his son, Aahmes, who besieges and takes 



History of Ancient Egypt 335 

Avaris. It is possible that the Hyksos evacuated this 
city and withdrew to Canaan, and that the taking 
mentioned on the monuments occurred after every- 
body who could leave was gone. The pursuit to 
Canaan, and the taking of Sheruhen in the sixth year 
of Aahmes, indicates as much. 

RESTORED LIST OF HYKSOS DYNASTY 

End of "Memphite kings," 2097 B, C. 

1. Saites (Seth), 19 

2078 B. C. 

2. Paian, before epoch, . . . . , 14 

2064 B. C. 
Paian, after epoch, as '■'Roch-leSy' 30 

2034 B. C. 

3. Apophis I, 61 

1973 B. C. 

4. Set-aan (Sethos), before epoch, 29 

1944 B. C. 
Set-aan, after epoch, as Asas, ........ 20 

1924 B. C. 

5. lannas, Cha-ian, or Chian, 50 

1874 B. C. 

6. Apophis II (36 years, 7 months, and 2 months), . 37 

Hyksos Expulsion, 1837 B. C. 

NEW EMPIRE 

The expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt, which, 
as we have already demonstrated, occurred about 
1837 B. C, paved the way for the New Empire. The 
Hyksos conquest, Hke the Norman conquest of Eng- 
land, consolidated the kingdom, by destroying the 
numerous local governments of Lower Egypt. The 
Middle Empire, which followed a period of division 



336 A Self-Verifying Chronological 

and confusion lasting one hundred and forty-eight 
years, governed all Egypt with great splendor for 
two hundred and ten years. The Twelfth Dynasty, 
although of Theban extraction, ruled at Memphis, 
and was included among the ''Memphite kings." In 
fact, there is no change in this respect until we reach 
the Hyksos Dynasty, and the contemporary local 
dynasty of Thebaid kings, at 2097 B. C, when Man- 
etho's "other kings" began. 

We have seen that the Thirteenth Dynasty held 
Memphis, although it no longer exercised sovereignty 
over the Delta, and that the Fifteenth Dynasty did 
not reside or make its capital at Thebes. But after 
Thebes had been the capital of the Sixteenth Dy- 
nasty for two hundred and sixty years, and had be- 
come celebrated and endeared to the native Egyp- 
tians as the great center of the "War of Liberation," 
the kings of the Eighteenth Dynasty, for this and 
other equally good reasons, decided to leave the capi- 
tal where it then was, and thus Thebes, "The City" 
(No), "The Great City" {No-da) became the glorious 
capital of the New Empire. 

It is true, as we have just seen, that the Hyksos 
were subdued, and driven out of other parts of Egypt, 
by a native king erroneously called Alisphragmutho- 
sis, or Mephragmuthosis, by Josephus, and penned 
up in the fortress-city of Avaris, and further that they 
were besieged and driven out of this city by Aahmes, 
the son of the former king, called Thummosis and 
Tuthmosis by Josephus; but we are not informed as 
to how many years intervened between the expulsion 



History of Ancient Egypt 337 

and the final establishment of the Eighteenth Dy- 
nasty and New Empire. We are told that ''when 
these people (Hyksos) were gone out of Egypt to 
Jerusalem, Tethmosis (Amosis), the king of Egypt, 
who drove them out, reigned afterward twenty-five 
years and four months, and then died.'' 

Manetho filled out the interval between the Ex- 
pulsion, 1837 B. C, and the epoch of Pachons, 1824 
B. C, with the reign of "Chebros," thirteen years. 
It follows, therefore, as all the numbers demonstrate, 
that Manetho's Eighteenth Dynasty, the only one 
we possess, dates from the epoch of Pachons, 1824 B, C, 
This important fact had been overlooked by the epit- 
omist from whom Josephus copied, as we can now 
easily demonstrate. After the reign of Amosis, with 
twenty-five years and four months, Josephus con- 
tinues his list as follows : "After him his son Chebros 
took the kingdom for thirteen years; after whom came 
Amenophthis for twenty years and seven months," 
etc. We know from contemporary monuments that 
Amosis was actually succeeded by his son; but this 
son's name was Amen-hotep, and not Neb-roth. Hence 
the name Chebros, which was placed before Amosis 
by Manetho, had been inserted immediately after 
Amosis by some epitomist before Josephus wrote his 
treatise against Apion. It is not difficult to discover 
how the mistake came to be made. Manetho, in his 
List of the Eighteenth Dynasty, expressly called 
Amosis *'the first.'' An unknown epitomist found 
''Chebros," with a reign of thirteen years, between 

the Hyksos Dynasty and the Eighteenth Dynasty. 
22 



338 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

What disposition should he make of this extra reign? 
He could not add "Chebros" to the six kings of the 
Hyksos Dynasty, neither could he place him at the 
head of the Eighteenth Dynasty. In this dilemma 
he noticed that Amenophthis, the son of Amosis, had 
a reign of thirteen years and nine months, and, re- 
garding this as an error, he substituted Chebros, with 
thirteen years, for Amenophthis with thirteen years 
and nine months. Before taking up the -Eighteenth 
Dynasty, we will briefly recapitulate the main events 
leading down to the expulsion of the Hyksos and 
establishment of the New Empire: 

1. The Sixteenth Dynasty developed its strength 
under the long and powerful reign of Neb-cher-ra 
Menthu-hotep, who was afterwards honored with 5^- 
ken-en-ra and Aahmes. 

2. Se-ken-en-ra, goaded by the tyranny of Apophis 
II, raised the standard of insurrection. A long and 
terrible war followed. The Hyksos were finally sub- 
dued and driven out of Egypt, but made a last stand 
behind the walls of Avaris. 

3. Aahmes, the son of the conqueror, invested 
Avaris, and after a long and ineffectual siege the 
Hyksos evacuated the city and retired to Canaan, 
where they founded Jerusalem. 

4. The "taking of Avaris," recorded in the tomb 
of the ship-captain Aahmes, son of Abana, at El-Kab, 
occurred after this evacuation. 

5. If the remnant of the Hyksos invaders, num- 
bering 240,000 fighting men, besides old men, wo- 
men, and children, had been captured, this fact would 



History of Ancient Egypt 339 

certainly have been mentioned in the ship-captain's 
account at El-Kab. 

6. The ship-captain verifies the above in every 
particular, for he tells us that he was born in El-Kab, 
that his father was an officer under King Se-ken-en-ra, 
and that he performed the duties of an officer, in his 
father's place, on board the ship in the days of King 
Neh-pehti-ra. 

7. Neb-pehti-ra pursued the Hyksos to Canaan, 
and besieged the town of Sharuhen in the sixth year 
of his reign, and finally "took it" (1832 B. C.) 

8. The kings at this time were known by their 
throne-titles. In the inscription just referred to, 
Taa-oa-ken and Aahmes are called Se-ken-en-ra and 
Neb-pehti-ra. Now, when we consider that Aahmes, 
''Child of the Moon," was the epoch-king of the 
Sothiac month of Pa-chons, "The Moon;" and, fur^ 
ther, that Chons and the Hamite (Hyksos) Nebroth, 
or Niprut, both contain roots meaning to "hasten," 
"chase," "pursue," it is easy to undertsand how Neb- 
pehra, in the vernacular of the Delta, became Nebroth, 
Nebros, Chnebros, and Chebros, the "Pursuer" of 
the hostile Hyksos. 

SOTHIAC LIST OF EIGHTEENTH DYNASTY 

Epoch of Pachons, i8?4 B. C. 

Amosis, 25. 4 

1799 B.C. 
Amenophthis, his son, 13-9 

1785 B.C. 
Amessis, his sister, 20. 7 

1765 B. C. 



340 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

Brought forward, 1765 B. C. 

Mephres, 21. 9 

1743 B.C. 
Mephra and Tuthmosis, 12. 9 

1730 B. C. 
Tuthmosis III, 25.10 

Bpocli of Payni, 1704 B. C. 

Amenophthis II, as "Armaios," 4. i 

1700 B. C. 

Tuthmosis IV, 9- 8 

1691 B. C. 

Amenophthis III, 3i-io 

1659 B.C. 
Atenachenres, brother ^ . . 12. i 

1647 B. C. 

Horus ^6 Q ) Atenanches, daughter, . . 12. 5 

1634 B. C. 

Acherres, another, .... 12. 3 

1622 B. C. 
Ramesses, i. 4 

1621 B. C. 
Sethos Menophthah, as "Sa-payni,^^ 36. 4 

Epoch of Epiphi, 1584 B.C. 

Sethos Menophthah, as " Osiropis," 22.10 

End of Dynasty, 1561 B. C. 

Total duration of dynasty, according to Africanus, 
two hundred and sixty-three years, which fills out the 
interval between the epoch 1824 B. C. and 1561 B. C. 

THE EIGHTEENTH DYNASTY OF SIXTEEN DIOS- 
POLITAN KINGS 

The Eighteenth Dynasty of Manetho, as we have 
just seen, began at the epoch of Pachons, 1824 B. C, 
reigned two hundred and sixty-three years in round 



History of Ancient Egypt 341 

numbers, and closed at the death of Sethos Menoph- 
thah, 1 561 B. C. The present Hsts of this dynasty, 
and the Nineteenth Dynasty also, have been badly 
corrupted, in order to make them conform to cer- 
tain erroneous dates for the Sojourn of the Children 
of Israel in Egypt. The oldest list we possess — to wit : 
that transmitted by Josephus in his celebrated treatise 
against Apion — contains several errors, which have 
found their way into all the other lists. It would take 
up too much space in this work to follow the suc- 
cessive discoveries, culminating finally in the resto- 
ration of Manetho's original list. We, therefore, re- 
verse the natural and logical order, and start out with 
the restored list, so that the reader may have no diffi- 
culty in understanding the nature of the alterations 
intentionally, or unintentionally, introduced into the 
lists. 

The list of Josephus is not dynastic. He merely 
enumerated the reigns between the Hyksos Expul- 
sion and the supposed brothers, Egyptus and Danaus 
(Sethos or Sethosis, and Armais or Hermeus), in 
order to show that three hundred and ninety-three (?) 
years intervened between the Exodus and the flight of 
Danaus to Argos. There were, in fact, but two hun- 
dred and sixteen years between the Hyksos Expul- 
sion and the beginning of Seti's reign. 

The sixteen kings of Africanus include Ach-en- 
aten and his two daughters, Rathotis (?) and the 
epoch-title Armais. 

We will now notice the reigns seriatim: 

I. We have already shown that the twenty-five 



342 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

years and four months of "Amosis" begin at the 
epoch 1824 B. C, and that he is the King "Teth- 
mosis," who drove out the Hyksos. His wife also 
bore the name Aahmes, "Child of the Moon," coupled 
with Nofert-ariy usually rendered ''Beautiful Consort 
of Aahmes." In the inscriptions this queen is styled, 
"divine wife of Amen," "great mistress of the two 
lands," "royal daughter," "royal sister," "royal wife," 
"royal mother," showing that she was entitled to the 
throne in her own right. 

Aahmes, after taking Sharuhen in the southern 
part of Canaan, devoted the rest of his reign to sup- 
pressing insurrections and consolidating the king- 
dom. 

2. The immediate successor of Aahmes, in Man- 
etho's list, was his son. The monuments show con- 
clusively that this son and successor was Amenophthis 
I. The name "Chebros," therefore, had been sub- 
stituted for Amenophthis before Josephus copied the 
list. Aahmes reigned altogether, from his accession, 
thirty-nine years and one month, and it is probable 
that Amenophthis was well advanced in age when he 
ascended the throne. His reign of thirteen years and 
nine months (now thirteen years) agrees with this 
assumption. The campaigns of Thothmes I render 
it highly probable that Amenophthis I completed the 
conquest of Canaan, which his father had initiated by 
the taking of Sharuhen. 

3. Manetho calls Amessis the sister of Amenoph- 
this I. The monuments show that this king had a 
sister named Aahmes, to wit: the "royal sister Aahmes 



History of Ancient Egypt 343 

Nebt-ta (''Mistress of the Land"), born of the great 
royal wife and royal mother Aah-hotep.'' 

We know from the official list of Seti I (Table 
of Abydus), and other monuments also, that Amen- 
hotep I was succeeded by Tahu-ti-mes I (Thothmes, 
Tuthmosis). Now, do the monuments sustain Man- 
etho, and show that this "royal sister," Amessis, who 
was styled "mistress of the land" during her brother's 
reign, became the wife of Thothmes I? We answer, 
unhesitatingly, "They do in the most conclusive man- 
ner." On the monuments of Thothmes I she is 
styled, "Divine wife, great mistress of the two coun- 
tries, royal sister and royal wife, AahmesT These 
titles show that she was the Queen of Egypt in her 
own right, and that Thothmes reigned, partly at least, 
by virtue of being her husband. I say, "partly at 
least," because there is reason to believe that there 
were two separate lines claiming hereditary rights to 
the throne, which were thus united. 

Amessis reigned twenty years and seven months; 
but the insertion of Chebros in the place of Amenoph- 
this necessarily forced all the succeeding names 
further down, so that Amenophthis now stands before 
the twenty years and seven months of Amessis, 
Amessis before the twenty-one years and nine months 
of Mephres, and so on, until we come to Tuthmosis 
III, who takes the place of Thothmes IV. 

The reign of Thothmes I was one of the most 
brilliant in the annals of Egyptian history. De- 
scended from the vigorous line represented by Neh- 
cher-ra, Se-ken-en-ra, and Aahmes, and allied by mar- 



344 ^ Self-Verifying Chronological 

riage to the venerated heiress of the ancient 
Diospolitan Hne, he had the courage and audacity to 
carry the war into Asia, for the purpose of ''slaking 
his anger" upon the hated 'Aamu, and in the course 
of his long reign reduced and completely subdued 
Canaan and Syria to the banks of the Euphrates. 
Towards the close of his reign, Thothmes I associated 
his daughter Het-shepsut with him on the throne; but 
we have no means of knowing to which of the two, 
Amessis or Mephres, Manetho gave the joint-reign. 
In my opinion, however, the twenty years and seven 
months of Amessis extend down to the death of 
Thothmes I. 

4. During the first ten years of her reign Mephres 
reigned jointly with her brother, Thothmes II. After 
his death, she assumed the throne-title Ma-ka-ra, 
which in that age became Ma-ka-ph'ra. Manetho, 
following the Lower Egyptian pronunciation, ren- 
dered it Mechephres, which was changed to Misa- 
phris, Mephres, Miphres, Memphres, and Misphres, 
all forms derived from the original Mechephres. 
Pliny, in his account of the obelisks, writes it Mes- 
phres. But the reader may ask : "Why did Manetho 
use the throne-title of this queen, when he invariably 
uses the sa-ra names of the kings?" Although this 
exception to the rule may appear to be contradictory, 
it applies to queens only. 

Nitocris and Sebkunophris are both throne-titles 
used by Manetho to designate queens in the Sixth 
and Twelfth Dynasties, where the sa-ra names of the 
kings are used. Upon reflection, it will be found that 



History of Ancient Egypt 345 

there was a good reason for this. It is hard to see 
how a queen could be termed a ''son of Ra," although, 
by the law of King Binothris, she was allowed to in- 
herit the crown. Thus we find that Manetho was 
perfectly consistent in calling this queen ''Me-che- 
phres," instead of Het-shepsut. 

The twenty-one years and nine months of Me- 
phres extend down to the joint-reign of herself and 
son, Thothmes III. Much confusion has been caused 
by the fact that Thothmes III, after the death of his 
mother, dated his inscriptions from the death of 
Thothmes II, so that he appears to have reigned 
fifty-three years, eleven months, and one day, when, 
in fact, he only reigned, including his joint-reign with 
his mother, forty-two years and eight months. The 
Table of Abydos, omitting the queens, traces the suc- 
cession through Thothmes I, Thothmes II, and 
Thothmes III. In such a list the reign of Thothmes 
III would date from his birth, and Thothmes II would 
have ten years and six months. 

5. Mephramuthosis and Misphragmuthosis are 
corrupted forms of Mephra and Tuthmosis, the com- 
pound name by which Manetho designated the joint- 
reign of Queen Ma-ka-pJira and her infant son, 
Thothmes III. It is not probable that this imperious 
and ambitious queen resigned the reins of govern- 
ment before her death, when she must have been at 
least fifty-four years of age. Another view is sug- 
gested by the pseudo-Sothis List, where the joint- 
reign was fixed at sixteen years, and the sole-reign 
of Thothmes III apparently at twenty-three years, 



346 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

and the total of both of these reigns at thirty-nine 
years; according to which it would seem that Me- 
phres had survived about three years longer. It 
seems that the pseudo-Sothis List gave her alone 
eleven years, instead of twenty-one years and nine 
months. 

6. The twenty-five years and ten months of the 
sole-reign of Thothmes III end at the epoch of Payni, 
1704 B. C. This fact, hitherto unnoticed, shows that 
special attention was paid to the observation of the 
Sothiac epochs during this dynasty. A new epoch- 
title, Cha-em-uas (Chamois) was introduced by Thoth- 
mes III. ''Crowned in Thebes" was equivalent to 
the ancient "re-crowned" and "re-born," and was used 
by four successive epoch-kings after Thothmes III. 
This new epoch-title is of great importance in solv- 
ing one of the most difficult questions recently raised 
in this dynasty. It seems that Amenophthis II was 
associated with Thothmes III on the throne before 
this epoch, for he also assumed the title Cha-em-uas 
in the slightly modified form, Se-cha-em-uas, and also 
named one of his sons, born at this time, Cha-em-uas. 

7. This reign dates from the epoch 1704 B. C, 
about two years after the Israelites settled in the land 
of Goshen, near Bubastis. All that has remained of 
it "Armais" with four years and one month, was 
transferred to the end of the dynasty to serve for 
Armais, the brother of Sethos, who was identified 
with Danaus. A moment's reflection will convince 
any one that Armais, who was never king but simply 
a deputy, could not have appeared in a dynastic list. 



History of Ancient Egypt 347 

The epoch-title which was transferred was Har- 
machis, or "Horus on the horizon," the position of 
the sun in the Sothiac year at the beginning of Payni. 
The strangest thing in connection with this epoch- 
reign is, that it reaches exactly to the death of Thoth- 
mes III, who thus appears to have retired from active 
life about 1704 B. C. The following will illustrate 
this more plainly: 

Thothmes III, to joint-reign, . . . . ii years 3 months 

Thothmes III, joint-reign, 12 " 9 " 

Thothmes III, sole reign, 25 " 10 " 

Thothmes III, epoch-reign, 4 " i " 

Total, 53 " II 

One of the most recent errors made by modern 
Egyptologists is the error of assigning the twenty- 
five years and ten months of the sole-reign of Thoth- 
mes III, before the epoch 1704 B. C, to Amenoph- 
this II. Petrie, after conceding that no monuments 
of Amenophthis II bear a higher date than the fifth 
year of his reign, and admitting that the monuments 
of his reign are comparatively numerous, contends 
that "lately the absolute proof of the length of this 
reign has been found on a wine-jar dated in the 
twenty-sixth year of Amenhotep II, thus agreeing with 
ManethoT This supposed date on the wine-jar is a 
palpable mistake, brought about by the desire to find 
something to support a self-evident misconstruction 
of Manetho's List; for it is plain that if Amenhotep II 
had reigned during these additional twenty-one years 
some proof of it would have survived in a period 



348 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

where monuments were so numerous. For fear the 
reader might consider this assertion more positive 
than the facts warrant, I will say that the Sothiac di- 
vision of the reign of Seti I, which is astronomically 
absolute, demonstrates that a reign of twenty-five or 
twenty-six years for Amenhotep II is a mathematical 
impossibility. I plant myself upon the conceded fact 
that no monument of Amenhotep II has ever been 
found, the date of which is beyond his fifth year, the 
supposed date on the alleged wine-jar to the con- 
trary notwithstanding. 

8. The reign of Thothmes IV, who was the son 
of Amenhotep II, is fixed at nine years and eight 
months. After Armais had been substituted for 
Amenhotep II, and then transferred to the end of 
the dynasty to serve as the fictitious king "Danaus," 
Tuthmosis stood alike for Thothmes III and Thoth- 
mes IV. 

During his long and eventful reign Thothmes III 
systematically subjugated Canaan and Syria, making 
yearly expeditions into those countries from the 
twenty-second to the forty-second years of his reign. 
They were thoroughly subjected, and organized into 
Egyptian provinces. A custom sprang up about this 
time which was destined to have an injurious effect 
upon the Egyptian Government and State. The 
kings of Egypt gave their daughters in marriage to 
the kings of Mesopotamia, and in return took wives 
from among the daughters of these foreign kings. As 
a natural result of this, the Egyptian court gradually 
adopted Asiatic customs and ceremonials. The wife 



History of Ancient Egypt 349 

of Thothmes IV was of foreign birth, and, although 
her mother may have been an Egyptian princess mar- 
ried to one of these Asiatic kings, foreign blood found 
its way through her into the ancient solar line of 
native rulers. 

9. ■ Amenophthis III was of mixed race, as his 
physiognomy clearly discloses. He was young when 
he mounted the throne, which accounts for his long 
reign of thirty-five or thirty-six years. Manetho, 
however, gave him only thirty-one years and ten 
months (now, by mistake, thirty years and ten 
months), owing to his joint-reign with Amenhotep 
IV, or Aten-ack-en-ra, his eldest son by Taia, the 
Mitannian princess. 

Amenophthis III married Taia in his tenth year, 
consequently Amenophthis IV must have been about 
twenty-one years old when he was associated with 
his father on the throne. Taia was the sister of Dush- 
ratta, King of Mitanni, or Naharina, the country in 
which Haran, of Mesopotamia, was situated. This 
queen, owing to her beauty, intellect, and strong 
personality, coupled with the mixed blood of Amen- 
ophthis III, succeeded in acquiring a pow^erful In- 
fluence over her husband and the court generally — an 
influence which dominated all Egypt under the reign 
of her son, Amenhotep IV. Under the time-honored 
rules of descent, the son of a foreign princess was 
not eligible to the throne. Although the powerful 
kings of this dynasty, backed up by victorious 
armies, were able to pass the crown to the princes 
born of foreign mothers, the unlawful practice ul- 



350 A Self-Verifying Chronological 

timately led to revolution and the reinstatement of 
the lawful line. 

10. Horus, or Har-em-heb, is the immediate suc- 
cessor of Amenophthis III in the Official I^ist of 
Seti I at Abydus. In, such a chronological list he 
necessarily received thirty-six years and nine months 
(now thirty-six years and five months), although he 
did not begin to reign until twenty-four years and 
six months after the death of his father, Amenophthis 
III. The actual succession upon the throne was as 
follows: Amenophthis IV and Aten-anch-es, the 
daughter of Amenophthis IV, reigned successively 
for twenty-four years and six months before Har-em- 
heb mounted the throne. Manetho mentioned the 
legitimate, or official, line and the actual line, and 
the trouble and confusion since experienced arose 
from the error of copying both into the lists as con- 
secutive. 

As we have seen, Amenophthis IV reigned jointly 
with his father for four or five years. Add this to 
the reign of twelve years and one month assigned 
to him by Manetho, and we have a total reign of 
about sixteen years. Now, wine-jars found at Tel-el 
Amarna, the site of his capital, are dated up to his 
seventeenth year. But Amenophthis IV associated 
his daughter Aten-anch-es upon the throne during the 
last four or five years of his reign, and the twelve 
years and one month of Manetho extend from Aten- 
acherres' accession as joint-king to the accession of 
his daughter Atenanches as joint-queen. Eusebius, 
therefore, gives this king sixteen years, and his 



History of Ancient Egypt 351 

daughter eight years; together, twenty-four years. 
Amenophthis IV, at the time of his accession as 
joint-king, was united in marriage to Tadii-chepa, the 
daughter of Dushratta, and niece of his mother, Taia. 
Her name was changed to Nofer-taiti. Manetho men- 
tioned her reign, calling her Rathotis, which thus 
found its way into two of the lists. In Josephus it 
appears as Rathotis with nine years; in Africanus, 
as Rathos with six years. It is entirely wanting in 
the other lists. It seems that Manetho also gave the 
length of the reigns of Taiti and Atenanches. 

When Har-em-heh, in his old age, was crowned 
in the temple of Amen at Thebes, he was solemnly 
united in marriage to an unnamed princess who was 
the heiress to the crown. The last of the three col- 
lateral reigns, "Atencheres, another^'' with twelve 
years and three months, represents the true reign 
of Horus, or, more properly, his wife. The vener- 
ation of Aten, or the "sun's disk," as it is called by 
Egyptologists, the ''splendor of Ra" (ach-en-ra), was 
connected with Pharaoh's position in the Sothiac year 
just below the western horizon. The monuments do 
not leave us in doubt on this point, for they tell us 
expressly that Har-em-achu (Harmachis), "Horus on 
the Horizon,*' is equivalent to Aten ach-en-ra, "Aten, 
the Splendor of Ra." The opposition to this king 
and his daughters was chiefly owing to his foreign 
mother, foreign blood, foreign wife, and foreign court. 

Under Amenophthis III we find, as governors 
of Nubia, two officials named Hui and Amenhotep, 
bearing the titles, Suten-sa en Rush and Emir satu 



352 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

res-iu, that is, ''King's son of Kush" and "Governor 
of the foreign lands of the South." We find these 
same officials under Tut-anch-amen, the husband of 
Anch-es-en-aten, whose name was changed to Anches- 
en-amen, Hui bearing the additional title of ''fan- 
bearer at the right of the king," showing that no 
great period of time had elapsed between the death 
of Amenophthis III and the accession of Anches-en- 
amen. 

11. Ramesses I is not, as many have supposed, 
the head of a new dynasty. Manetho, who had better 
sources of information than we now have, entered him 
in this dynasty, and we may safely assume that he be- 
longed to the same family. The monuments show 
that Ramesses I, in the second year of his reign, as- 
sociated his son, Seti I, with himself upon the throne. 
Seti was not over ten or twelve years of age at the 
time, and the joint-reign of father and son continued 
for many years. Manetho gave Ramesses I the one 
year and four months of his sole-reign, and Sethos 
(Seti I) the entire fifty-nine years and two months 
from his accession as joint-king to his death. This 
fact has led Egyptologists into the error of assuming 
that Ramesses I reigned but one year and four 
months, when, in fact, he seems to have reigned until 
Seti was well advanced in years. 

12. The reign of Sethos, by some unaccountable 
mishap, disappeared from the lists. The hiatus also 
appears in the List of Josephus. Was the omission 
due to him, or to others before him? In the work 



History of Ancient Egypt 353 

of Manetho there was the following chronological 
succession in the of^cial line. 

Ramesses I, . . 1.4 

Sethos Menophthah, *, • • • 59-2 

Ramesses Miamun, , . . . . 66.2 

Menophthah, 19.6 

Sethos (Necht-sethos), 51 

Rampses-hakes (Ramesses III), , ... 61 

Josephus overlooked Seti I when he copied the 
reigns down to Menophthah. These reigns actually 
cover a period of three hundred and forty-eight years, 
but he made the total three hundred and thirty-three 
years, by omitting Seti's reign of fifty-nine years and 
including the extra thirty-six years and five months 
of Horus, as well as the thirty-six years and nine 
months of Amenophthis IV and his daughters, and 
the nine years of Rathotis. 

The reference to the naval force and naval battle 
of Ramesses III shows plainly how he confused and 
blended Seti I and Ramesses II, on the one hand, 
and Set-necht and Ramesses III on the other. By 
placing Sethos and Ramesses after Menophthah, in- 
stead of before him, he gained one hundred and 
eighty-nine years for the length of the period be- 
tween the Hyksos Expulsion and the Flight of Dan- 
aus. There can be no possible doubt that the Sethos 
who was called Egyptus, and made the celebrated 
expedition into Canaan, Mesopotamia, and the ''east- 
ern parts" beyond Assyria, was Seti I. Hence, it 
is high time to give up all theories founded on such 
palpable mistakes. Thus Amenophis (that is, Men- 
23 



354 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

ophthah), Manetho's Pharaoh of the Exodus, did not 
follow after Ramesses III, or five hundred and eigh- 
teen years after the beginning of the Eighteenth Dy- 
nasty, as Josephus computes it, but he followed im- 
mediately after Ramesses II, three hundred and 
twenty-nine years after the epoch 1824 B. C. In 
the same way, Sethos, or Egyptus, commenced to 
reign, as a boy, two hundred and sixteen years only 
after the expulsion of the Hyksos. We are deeply 
indebted to Josephus, however, for the positive as- 
surance that, according to Manetho's express state- 
ment, Sethos Egyptus reigned fifty-nine years, as did 
his eldest son Ramesses after him sixty-six years, 
which is true and authentic. 

The great epoch of Epiphi 1584 B. C, as we 
have demonstrated in another chapter, divided Seti's 
reign into unequal parts of thirty-six and twenty-three 
years respectively. As the first part of his reign was 
in the month of Payni, he was Sa-payni, now ''Span- 
ios," for thirty-six years, and, as the second part 
thereof was in the month of Epiphi, he was Osiropis, 
or Hiisiri-api (whence Egyptus), for twenty-three 
years. But as this long and brilliant reign can now be 
restored to the lists, it will be reserved for a separate 
chapter, devoted to the great Sesostris of Greek 
legend. 

SETI, SETHOS, SETHOSIS, OR SESOSTRIS 

The discovery that Seti I, who was called Sethos 
by Manetho, reigned fifty-nine years, instead of nine 
or nineteen years, as hei*etofore assumed, and that 



History of Ancient Egypt 355 

he was the celebrated epoch-king of Epiphi, 1584 
B. C, familiarly known as "Osiropis," places him and 
his reign in a new and unexpected Hght. Although 
these fifty-nine years undoubtedly include his long co- 
regency with his father, Ramesses I, his sole reign 
alone must have covered an average generation; for, 
as we have just seen, his epoch-reign as "Osiropis" 
amounted to twenty-three years. As a genial and 
fearless leader of men upon the field of battle, as a 
conqueror who overthrew^ the armies of the most 
powerful nations of his time, and carried the Egyp- 
tian standards into regions where they had never 
been seen before, and as a builder of grand and singu- 
larly beautiful monuments, he was unrivaled in Egyp- 
tian history, and his renown was so great and en- 
during that, in the popular mind of after ages, he 
became a legendary hero, like Nimrod, the great 
Sesotris of the Greek classics. It is true that 
popular fancy ascribed to this legendary Sesostris 
various noted actions performed by Usertasen III, 
Thothmes I, Ramesses II, and others, and it was, 
no doubt, on this account, as well as others, that 
Manetho found fault with Herodotus "for his igno- 
rance and false relations of Egyptian afTairs." For- 
tunately, a brief summary of Manetho's account of 
this king's reign has come down to us. After set- 
ting down the names and reigns of the kings of the 
Eighteenth Dynasty, ending with Menophthah, but 
altogether omitting Seti, Josephus says: "After him 
came Sethosis, and Ramesses, who had an army of 
horse and a naval force. This king appointed his 



356 A Self-Verifying Chronological 

brother Armais to be his deputy over Egypt." Ac- 
cording to this extract, it was Ramesses, and not 
Sethosis, who had the army of horse and the naval 
force, and appointed his brother to be his deputy 
over Egypt. 

It did not escape the notice of Josephus that this 
did not harmonize with the extract concerning 
Sethosis which he was about to incorporate in his 
treatise, and he, therefore, offered the following ex- 
planation: 'In another copy it stood thus: 'After 
him came Sethosis and Ramesses, two brethren, the 
former of whom had a naval force, and in a hostile 
manner destroyed those who met him on the sea; 
but as he slew Ramesses in no long time afterward, 
so he appointed another of his brethren to be his 
deputy over Egypt.' " We now know that it was 
Ramesses III, the son of the second Sethos of Man- 
etho's Lists, who ''had a naval force" and "destroyed 
those who met him upon the sea," and it is perfectly 
evident that the copies consulted by Josephus were 
merely variant excerpts from Manetho's history, in 
which Sethos I and Ramesses II were already con- 
founded and blended with Sethos II and Ram- 
esses III. 

We have already seen how Sethos I was crowded 
outof the lists in consequence of the insertion in 
the official chronological list of the Eighteenth Dy- 
nasty of the epoch-reigns of Chebros and Armais and 
the collateral reigns of Ach-en-aten and his two daugh- 
ters. 

The defeat of the Mediterranean nations by 



History of Ancient Egypt 357 

Ramesses III was certainly mentioned in Manetho's 
work, for this king had caused beautiful representa- 
tions of his great naval victory to be sculptured on 
the walls of the temple erected by him at Medinet 
Habu, and it is also mentioned in the Harris papy- 
rus. After Sethos I had disappeared from the lists, 
it was natural to suppose that all these accounts be- 
longed to one and the same king. But we are now 
in a position to distinguish the acts and deeds of 
Sethos from those of Ramesses III. It was Sethos 
who appointed his brother Harmais deputy over 
Egypt during his absence in foreign countries, be- 
cause he alone was called "Egyptus," that is, ''Hus-ar 
ApiJ' Josephus tells us that Sethosis gave his brother 
all the other authority of a king, with these exceptions 
only, that he should not wear the diadem, nor be in- 
jurious to the queen, etc., adding, verbatim: 

"While he (Sethosis) made an expedition against 
Cyprus and Phoenicia, and besides, against the 
Assyrians and the Medes, ... he then sub- 
dued them all, some by his arms, some with- 
out fighting, and some by the terror of his great 
army; and, being puffed up by the great suc- 
cesses he had had, he went on still more boldly, and 
overthrew the cities and countries that lay in the 
eastern parts; but after considerable time, Armais, 
who was left in Egypt, did all those very things, by 
way of opposition, which his brother had forbidden 
him to do, without fear, for . . . at the per- 
suasion of his friends he put on the diadem, and set 
up to oppose his brother; but then, he who was set 
over the priests of Egypt, wrote letters to Sethosis, 
and informed him of all that had happened, and how 



358 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

his brother had set up to oppose him; he therefore 
returned back to Pelusium immediately, and recov- 
ered his kingdom again. The country also was called, 
from his name, Egypt; for Manetho says that Sethosis 
himself was called Egyptus, as was his brother Armais 
called Danaus." 

This much undoubtedly related to Seti I, for in- 
cidents taken from this campaign were, by order of 
this king, engraved on the outer wall of the Great 
Hall at Karnak, where they can still be seen. There 
can be no doubt that this account was originally 
copied from Manetho's work, and that he here de- 
scribes the expedition which gave rise to the legends 
of Sethosis. 

When Josephus hurriedly made these extracts, he 
was trying to prove the antiquity of the Jews, and 
Sethos II and Ramesses III naturally suited his pur- 
pose better than Seti I, for he continues as follows: 

"This is Manetho's account, and evident it is, 
from the number of years by him set down belonging 
to this interval, if they be summed up together, that 
these shepherds, as they are here called, who were 
no other than our forefathers, were delivered out of 
Egypt, and came thence, and inhabited this country 
three hundred and ninety-three years before Danaus 
came to Argos, although the Argives look upon him 
as their most ancient king." 

n another place, speaking of the Exodus, which 
he confounds with the expulsion of the Hyksos, Jose- 
phus says : 

"Now from his days (meaning Amosis) the reigns 
of the intermediate kings, according to Manetho, 



History of Ancient Egypt 359 

amounted to three hundred and ninety-three years, 
as he says himself, till the two brothers, Sethos and 
Hermeus; the one of whom, Sethos, was called by 
that other name of Egyptus, and the other, Hermeus, 
by that of Danaus. He also says that Sethos cast 
the other out of Egypt, and reigned fifty-nine years, 
as did his eldest son Rhampses reign after him sixty- 
six years." 

It is hardly necessary to repeat that this number 
of three hundred and ninety-three years was not de- 
rived from Manetho, because he placed Seti I two 
hundred and seventeen years only after the expulsion 
of the Hyksos. It is the sum as computed by Jose- 
phus himself, and is made up of the three hundred 
and thirty-three years of his list (including the reigns 
of Ramesses II and Menophthah) and the fifty-nine 
years of Sethos. 

The true interval from the expulsion of the Hyk- 
sos to the end of Menophthath's reign is three hun- 
dred and sixty-one years; but, to the beginning of 
Sethos' reign, only two hundred and seventeen years. 
The same error enters into the total of five hundred 
and eighteen years from the expulsion of the Hyksos 
to Manetho's Pharaoh of the Exodus, which Josephus 
obtained by adding the fifty-nine years of Sethos and 
the sixty-six years of Ramesses to his false total of 
three hundred and ninety-three years. The true sum 
was three hundred and forty-two years. It is sig- 
nificant that in the first copy Josephus found these 
names written Sethosis and Armais, while in the 
other they were written Sethos and Hermeus. This 
indicates that he used different extracts, made by 



360 A Self-Verifying Chronological 

different authors, and that much of the confusion ap- 
parent in his alleged extracts was owing to this fact. 
As epoch-king of Epiphi, 1584 B. C, Sethos assumed 
several epoch-titles, such as Osiropis, Chamois, Nem- 
mestUy and Nem-chau. Osiropis is the Greek form of 
Hus-ir-api, that is, Osiris in his character of Apis- 
bull, or Nile. The statement, therefore, that "the 
country also was called, from his name, Egypt," is 
the conclusion of Josephus or the author from whom 
he copied, for he adds: "For Manetho says that 
Sethosis himself was called Egyptus." This was true, 
in one sense, for Seti was also called Hus-ir-Api, the 
second element of which {Hapi or Api) was some- 
times used to designate the Nile; and in early times 
the Nile was called Egyptus by the Greeks. We 
shall see that ^Eschylos, fully two hundred years be- 
fore Manetho, knew Seti I by the name of Egyptus, 
and his perfidious brother by the name of Danaus, 
which proves, to a certainty, that Manetho did not 
render Osiropis "Egyptus," but that he merely adop- 
ted the rendition in use among the Greeks in his time. 

Cha-em-uas, "Crowned in Thebes," is an epoch- 
title introduced by Thothmes III, and borne by five 
successive epoch-kings. 

Nem-mesfu, "Re-born," and Nem-chau, "Re- 
crowned," are epoch-titles assumed by Amenemes I 
to mark the beginning of a new Sothiac cycle, be- 
cause Ra was then re-born and re-crowned as 
"Horus, the babe" (Har-pa-chrat), where fore their use 
by Seti, who merely ushered in a new Sothiac month, 
appears to be an unwarranted innovation upon the an- 



History of Ancient Egypt 361 

cient custom. In the same way, ^^(i-festivals, which 
were originally celebrated at the middle or begin- 
ning of the last quarter of a Sothiac month, s6em to 
have been celebrated by Ramesses II regardless of 
these important astronomical periods. We have just 
seen that, according to Manetho, supported by the 
contemporary monuments at Thebes, Sethos invaded, 
first, Phoenicia and Cyprus, then the Assyrians and 
Medes, and, lastly, being puffed up by his successes, 
the ''eastern parts." 

This, I have no doubt, is strictly historical, and 
constitutes the ''grain of fact" out of which the 
legends associated with the name of Sesostris 
sprouted and grew. Diodorus relates, on the author- 
ity of the Egyptian priests, that Sesostris excelled all 
his ancestors in great and famous actions; that, after 
his birth, his father, having performed a noble act, 
became king, and caused all the boys of Egypt, who 
were born on the same day with Sesostris, to be 
brought up and educated with him, all of them being 
required to go through the same exercises and to 
submit to the same discipline, in which way they 
were fitted, by bodily vigor and intellectual attain- 
ments, to undertake great actions, and, if necessary, 
become commanders. 

Sesostris and his companions were first sent with 
an army to Arabia, which country they subdued, but 
not until they had accustomed themselves, by hunt- 
ing wild beasts, to endure the fatigues and the want 
of water and provisions incident to desert life. 

Afterwards he was sent to the western parts, and 



362 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

conquered the greater part of Libya, being as yet 
but a youth. Coming to the crown, after his father's 
death, Sesostris, emboldened by his successes, con- 
ceived the design of conquering the whole world. 
With this view, he proceeded to gain the good will 
of all the Egyptians, influencing many by his affable 
and courteous demeanor, others by money, and 
others still by gifts of land. He also pardoned those 
who were condemned for high treason, and liberated 
a vast number who, strange to say, were imprisoned 
for debt. He divided Egypt into thirty-six nomes 
(?), over every one of which he appointed a governor. 
Out of these nomes he chose the strongest and ablest 
men, and thus raised an army of six hundred thousand 
foot, twenty-four thousand horse, and twenty-seven 
hundred chariots, which were officered by the young 
men who had been brought up with him and were used 
to martial exercises from their childhood. The number 
of these is said to have been seventeen hundred. Thus 
they were attached to their king, and to one another, 
by bonds of brotherly affection. 

Upon these companions Sesostris bestowed large 
estates and lands in the richest parts of Egypt, re- 
serving only their attendance upon his person in times 
'of war (Feudal tenures, which were so common 
among the Franks, Saxons, Normans, and other Ger- 
man nations). Having organized the army, he first 
subdued the Ethiopians, and forced them to pay him 
a tribute of ebony, gold, and elephants' tusks. He 
then sailed into the Red Sea with a fleet of four hun- 
dred vessels, being the first Egyptian to build long 



History of Ancient Egypt 363 

ships, and gained the islands of this sea, and subdued 
the bordering nations as far as India. He likewise 
marched his army through Asia, subdued the Skyth- 
ians to the river Tanais, where, it was said, he left some 
of the Egyptians who were afterwards known as the 
Colchians, and penetrated into Thrace, where he 
came near losing his army, owing to the difficulty 
of the passages and want of provisions. 

Having spent nine years in this expedition, he 
returned to Egypt loaded with spoils, and bringing 
large numbers of captives with him. 

After his return, he devoted himself to the arts. 
of peace, adorned the temples with rich presents and 
the spoils of his enemies, erected many fair and stately 
works, built temples in the principal cities, intersected 
Egypt with a network of canals, and defended the 
eastern frontier by a wall drawn from Pelusium, 
through the deserts, to Heliopolis, employing his cap- 
tives in these gigantic works. 

He also caused a ship, or ark, to be made of cedar, 
two hundred and eighty cubits in length, gilded over 
on the outside and lined witb silver within, which he 
dedicated to Amen, the god most adored by the Thebans. 

He erected two obelisks of polished marble, one 
hundred and twenty cubits high, on which were in- 
scribed a description of the large extent of his em- 
pire, the value of his revenues, and the number of 
the nations conquered by him; and he placed in the 
temple of Phthah, at Memphis, statues of himself 
and wife, each of one entire stone, thirty cubits in 
height, and of his sons, twenty cubits in height. 



364 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

Diodorus concludes his account of Sesostris by add- 
ing that he seems to have excelled all other kings 
of Egypt that were eminent for power and greatness, 
in warlike achievements, the number of his gifts and 
oblations, and his wonderful works in Egypt. His 
fame and renown continued down to the time of 
Darius, and he was venerated by the people next to 
Osiris. After he had reigned thirty-three (23?) 
years, he became blind, and put an end to his own 
life. He was admired for this, not only by the priests, 
but by all the rest of the Egyptians; for his voluntary 
death, after his sphere of usefulness had been abruptly 
cut off, was in keeping with his glorious life. 

We have given this summary of the account of 
Diodorus in order to contrast it with the account of 
Manetho and the facts revealed by the monuments. 

Going back to the truthful and sober account of 
Manetho, we find that Seti, before the expulsion of 
his brother Armais, made an expedition against 
Cyprus and Phoenicia, and also against the Assyrians 
and the Medes, and that, after he had subdued these, 
he went on still more boldly, and overthrew the cities 
and countries that lay in the ''eastern parts." 

This account is verified by the representations 
and explanatory inscriptions of the campaigns of Seti 
I engraved on the north wall of the Great Hall at 
Karnak. Here, according to Ebers, in Baedeker, 
we can see Seti storming the fortress of Kanana in 
the land of Edom, in South Palestine. Here are 
pictured representations of his battles with the 
Fenechu (Phoenicians), the Chant (Canaanites), the 



History of Ancient Egypt 365 

Ermennu and Eltennii, or "Iltannu/' (Mesopota- 
mians, Syrians, or Assyrians), and the storming of 
Kadesh, the stronghold of the Hittites, and Ninua, a 
city of the Assyrians situated on a river. 

We have seen that Manetho used the expression, 
"cities and countries that lay in the eastern parts," 
with reference to countries lying east of the As- 
syrians and Medes; and we must bear in mind that he 
wrote about 287 B. C, and used the geographical 
names in vogue at that time. The Asiatic campaigns 
of the Egyptian kings were necessarily alike in many 
particulars. The starting point was invariably Pelu- 
sium, or the "Pelusian Daphne," and the line of 
march the great military and commercial highway 
along the shores of the Mediterranean already de- 
scribed in our comments on the ''Pyramid Texts." 
Under such circumstances, it is not at all strange 
that, in the course of centuries, various details of 
successive campaigns were confounded and credited 
to one and the same popular hero. Thus Sethos and 
his son Ramesses, who was called "Se-sethos" (Son 
of Sethos), owing to their joint-reign, joint enter- 
prises, and joint works, were afterwards regarded as 
one. Again, Manetho certainly mentioned Sesostris 
in connection with Usertasen II or III of the Twelfth 
Dynasty, and this fact, no doubt, induced the manip- 
ulators of Manetho's Lists, who were engaged in 
the hopeless task of fixing "Menes, the first king," 
their "Mestraim," or Mizraim, at 2726 B. C, to iden- 
tify Seti with Usertasen, and drop him from the List 
of the Eighteenth Dynasty, where he stood last. 



366 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

In the Ivist of Africanus we find the remark that 
Sesostris (who occupies the place of Usertasen II, 
who reigned seventeen years, and Usertasen III, who 
reigned thirty-eight years) subjected Ethiopia and all 
Asia to Thrace, and was venerated by the Egyptians 
next to Osiris. In the later List of Eusebius, how- 
ever, there is prefixed to this remark the additional 
remark, taken from Sesochris of the Second Dynasty, 
that he was four cubits, three palms, and two fingers 
in height. This shows how the manipulators of the 
list tried to blend, and reduce to one, Sesochris, User- 
tosis, Sethosis, Sesethosis, and Sesonchis. We will 
now briefly examine the chief incidents of the ac- 
count transmitted by Diodorus: 

1. Sesostris excelled all his ancestors in great and 
famous actions. . . . 

This needs no comment, as it is merely a matter of 
opinion. 

2. His father, having performed a noble action, 
became king, after the birth of Sesostris. . . . 

Ramesses I was the successor of Horus {Har-em- 
heb), who reigned in the right of his wife, and may 
have become king in the manner stated. It was cer- 
tainly after Seti's birth, for he was made co-regent 
after his father had reigned but one year and four 
months, when he must have been, according to cus- 
tom, twelve years old. This indicates that Ramesses I 
also obtained the throne through the hereditary right 
of his wife, the mother of Seti. 

3. Sesostris was brought up and educated with 
the boys of Egypt v/ho were born on the same day 
with him. . , . 



History of Ancient Egypt 367 

There is nothing improbable in this, ahhough it 
might, with equal probability, apply to Usertasen. 

4. Sesostris and his companion were sent to 
Arabia, and subdued that country. Afterwards he 
was sent to Libya, and conquered the greater part of 
that country, being still a youth, that is, I suppose, 
wearing the sidelock of minority. As this was be- 
fore his father's death, Seti may not have been per- 
mitted to record these juvenile exploits upon the 
walls of the Temple of Amen at Thebes. 

4. After his father's death, Sesostris conceived the 
plan of conquering the whole world, proceeded to 
win the good will of the Egyptians, pardoned those 
who were condemned for high treason, and liberated 
a vast number who were imprisoned for debt. 

All this may have applied to Usertasen I or 
Sethos, for many cases of high treason occurred under 
Amenemes I and Ramesses I, both of whom re-estab- 
lished the old order of things after periods of anarchy. 

5. He first subdued the Ethiopians, and forced 
them to pay tribute. 

This seems to apply to Usertasen, for Seti's cam- 
paign against the Edomites of Canaan took place in 
the first year of his sole-reign. 

6. We have already commented on the expedi- 
tion through Asia. 

A monument preserved in the Louvre (C. I.) 
shows that Usertasen I overthrew the Hir-ti-sha, the 
Mentiu, and the Hittites. I refer to the monument of 
Menthu-nesu, translated by Brugsch. Eratosthenes, 
according to Strabo, wrote of a memorial tablet set 



368 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

up by Sesostris at the Straits of Bab-el-Mandeb, com- 
memorating in hieroglyphs his passage of the Red 
Sea, after he had, in the beginning of his reign, first 
subjected the Ethiopians and Troglodytes. He 
passed over to Arabia, and thence through Asia. 
Now, this does not agree with the account of the 
Asiatic campaign of Sethos, as described by himself 
on the walls of the Temple of Karnak, and by Man- 
etho. It must be said, however, that there is a repre- 
sentation of a campaign against the Libyans. 

7. After his return, Sesostris adorned the temples 
with rich presents, erected many fair and stately works, 
built temples in the principal cities, intersected Egypt 
with a network of canals, defended the eastern fron- 
tier by a wall drawn from Pelusium to Heliopolis, 
caused an ark to be made, and erected two obe- 
lisks, etc. 

All this seems to apply to Sethos and Sesethos. 
The monuments, temples, etc., even in their present 
ruined condition, speak for themselves. The repre- 
sentations just referred to show the long-bearded 
inhabitants of the Libanus felling the tall and slender 
cedars for the ark, which he dedicated to Amen. 

8. He placed in the Temple of Ptah, at Memphis, 
colossal statues of himself and wife, each of one stone, 
thirty cubits in height, etc. 

These statues survive, although the magnificent 
Temple of Ptah, which rivaled that of Amen at 
Thebes, has entirely disappeared. They were placed 
there by Sesothis or Ramesses II, and are, in fact, 
colossal. 



History of Ancient Egypt 369 

9. After he had reigned thirty-three years, he be- 
came blind, and committed suicide. 

If Sethos actually reigned thirty-three years as 
sole king, his joint-reign must have covered twenty- 
six years. A reign of twenty-seven years and four 
months for Ramesses I accords well with all the his- 
torical probabilities. This would make Sethos thirty- 
eight years old at his father's death, and seventy- 
one years old at his own death, and account for his 
early campaigns in Arabia and Libya. 

10. The reference to Osiris points unmistakably 
to Seti, who was known and venerated as Osiropis, 
or Serapis. 

The fable of the six sons, two of whom were used 
as a "bridge,'' and four of whom were saved, related 
by the "Father of History," probably grew out of an 
allegory. It was the fashion, at that time, to veil 
scientific facts under allegories. The reign of Seti 
"bridged" two of the Sothiac months of the second 
half of the cycle which commenced in the year 2784 
B. C. (compare han-ti). 

After he had reigned twenty-six years as co- 
regent, and nine or ten years as sole king, to wit, 
in the year 1584 B. C, the Sothiac month of Pa-oni 
came to an end, that is, died, and the Sothiac month 
of Epiphi commenced, that is, was born. Seti, as Sa- 
payni, or "Spanios" ("Son of Payni"), died, and was 
"re-born" and "re-crowned" (nem-mestu and nem- 
chau) as Hus-ar-Api, or "Osiropis." The ceiling of 
the long and narrow chamber of the beautiful Temple 
of Abydus, which contains the world-renowned 
24 



370 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

*'Table of Abydus," is ornamented with the car- 
touches of Seti, bearing the legends "nem-mestu'' and 
"nem-chauf in fact, this temple was erected to com- 
memorate this important chronological event. Seti 
and his infant son, Ramesses, are represented as 
standing before and doing homage to the long, 
double line of seventy-six "ancestors," who wore the 
double crown of the South and North, that is, claimed 
to exercise universal dominion. Ramesses is pic- 
turned as a boy wearing the sidelock; consequently he 
was born before this date (1584 B. C), and, as he is 
pictured as a boy at his father's side in the representa- 
tion of the Libyan campaign, which we can fix some- 
where near the ninth year of vSeti's sole-reign, he must 
have been fully ninety years old at the time of his 
death, possibly one hundred. The regnal years of 
Seti date from his accession as sole king, and the end 
of his ninth year carries us down, approximately, 
to the epoch of Epiphi, 1584 B. C, when a new 
count was commenced. 

NINETEENTH DYNASTY OF SEVEN DIOSPOLITAN KINGS 

The List of Africanus, originally the most reliable, 
although now badly corrupted, is as follows : 

NINETEENTH DYNASTY OF SEVEN DIOSPOWTAN KINGS 

T. Sethos, 51 years 

2. Rapsakes, 61 " 

3. Amenoplithis, 20 " 

4. Ramesses, 60 " 

5. Ammenemnes, 5 " 

6. Thuoris, 7 " 

Total, 209 " 



History of Ancient Egypt 371 

The List of Eusebius, which reduces the number 
of kings to five, including Thuoris, is as follows : 

NINBTKKNTH DYNASTY OF FIVE) DIOSPOLITAN KINGS 

1. Sethos, 55 3'ears 55 years 

2. Rampses, 66 ** 66 

3. Amenephthis, 40 " 8 

4. Ammenemes, 26 " 26 

5. Thuoris, 7 " 7 

Total, 194 " 194 

Now we have seen that the Eighteenth Dynasty 
came to a close at the death of Sethos I, 1561 B. C, 
a date established by the total of two hundred and 
sixty-three years from the epoch 1824 B. C, checked 
by the epoch-reign of ''Harmais," 1704 B. C, and 
astronomically fixed by the epoch-reign of ''Osiropis." 
As Sethos reigned twenty-three years after 1584 
B. C, or to 1 561 B. C, the end of the Eighteenth 
Dynasty, it follows, axiomatically, that Ramesses II 
Miamun, and not Sethos, headed Manetho's Nine- 
teenth Dynasty. But how can we account for Sethos 
appearing as the first king of the dynasty in the pres- 
ent lists? 

Now, bear in mind that Josephus confounded the 
Expulsion of the Hyksos with the Exodus of the 
Israelites, and that he placed this event at about 1648 
B. C. In copying the Manethonian Lists, his avowed 
object was to show how many years intervened be- 
tween the Exodus and the ''Flight of Danaus," ''the 
most ancient king of the Argives;" he was not copy- 
ing Manetho's dynasties, but simply extracting a con- 
secutive list of the reigns between these two events. 



372 A Self-Verifying Chronological 

Now, it so happened that he made several stu- 
pendous mistakes in the Ust thus extracted. In the 
first place, Egyptus, the brother of Danaus, was cer- 
tainly Sethos I, who commenced to reign about two 
hundred and seventeen years after the Hyksos Ex- 
pulsion, but Josephus omitted his reign of fifty-nine 
years between Ramesses I and Ramesses II, which en- 
abled him to bring in the eighty-five years and eight 
months of Ramesses II and Menophthah before 
''Sethosis, who was also Ramesses." He also added 
four side-reigns with forty-five years and nine months 
to his list (which contained the thirty-six years and 
nine months of Horus), whereby he obtained three 
hundred and thirty-three instead of two hundred and 
sixteen years, down to Sethosis. Not satisfied with 
this result, he went further, and added sixty additional 
years for the fifty-nine years and two months of 
Sethos, which gave him three hundred and ninety- 
three years from the Exodus to the ''Flight of 
Danaus." It is clear that ''Sethosis, who was also 
Ramesses," introduced by Josephus at the end of his 
list, was Set-necht, who reigned jointly with his son 
Ramesses III; for we know, from the monuments, 
that the "naval force" mentioned by Josephus be- 
longed to him, and that he won a great naval vic- 
tory over the foreign nations that invaded Egypt 
during his reign. Notwithstanding this, when Jose- 
phus came to fix the date of Menophthah, Manetho's 
Pharaoh of the Exodus, he went back to Sethos I, 
stating that, according to Manetho, he reigned fifty- 
nine years, and that his eldest son Ramesses reigned 



History of Ancient Egypt 373 

after him sixty-six years, and, by adding these ad- 
ditional one hundred and twenty-five years to his for- 
mer total of three hundred and ninety-three years, ob- 
tained a total of five hundred and eighteen years from 
the Hyksos Expulsion to the reign of Menophthah, 
when, in fact, it was only about three hundred and 
forty-two years. 

It is remarkable that so many errors could have 
found their way into such a small list, and that the 
early Christian chronographers should have regarded 
it as more reliable than the work of Manetho itself. 
from which it purports to have been extracted. 

The Lists of Eusebius show that by his time 
Ramesses II and Menophthah had been added to the 
Eighteenth Dynasty, upon the supposed authority of 
Josephus, and the Nineteenth Dynasty correspond- 
ingly reduced to five kings, with Sethos II, or Set- 
necht, at its head. 

The first and second kings in the List of Afri- 
canus are undoubtedly Seti 11^ or Set-necht^ and Ra- 
messes III, but some one, in order to keep up the 
total, inserted Ramesses with sixty instead of sixty- 
one, years, a second time, as number four, where 
Rampsakes, or Ramesses III, originally stood. 

As Eusebius had given the Eighteenth Dynasty 
three hundred and forty-eight years by adding the 
eighty-five years of Ramesses and Menophthah to the 
original total of two hundred and sixty-three years, 
his Nineteenth Dynasty, minus these eighty-five 
years, was reduced to one hundred and fifty-two 
years. The Armenian Version still shows that this 



374 ^ Self- Verifying Chronological 

was the case. By restoring the first two numbers 
from Africanus, we obtain this result : 

1. Sethos (Set-necht), 51 years 

2. Rampses (Ramesses III), 61 

3. Amenephthis, 8 

4. Ammenemes, 26 

5. Thuoris, 7 

Total, 153 

In the List of Eusebius, transmitted by Syncellus, 
the forty years of Amenephthis are taken from the 
forty years of Menophthah in the Eighteenth Dy- 
nasty. 

Bearing in mind that one reign at least has been 
crowded out of the List of Africanus, and that Thu- 
oris ought not to be counted as one of the kings of 
the Nineteenth Dynasty, we may assume that there 
were three reigns of eight, twenty, and five years re- 
spectively in this dynasty, especially as the reign of 
twenty-six years in the List of Eusebius evidently 
represents the two reigns of twenty and five years, 
the extra year being due to the extra months. The 
following list will illustrate this more plainly : 

1. Ramesses II Miamen, 66.2 years 

2. Menophthah, 19.6 " 

3. Sethos II {Set-necht), 51 " 

4. Rampsakes (Ramesses III), 61 '* 

5. Ramesses IV Miamen, 8 " 

6. Amenephthis I, 20 '* 

7. Amenemes (Ramesses Amen-at?), 5 " 

Thuoris, before era, 7 " 

Total, 237 " 

We have already seen how Manetho's lists were 
systematically changed, in order to bring the begin- 



History of Ancient Egypt 375 

ning of the Eighteenth Dynasty down to 1648 B. C, 
the date of the Exodus as fixed by Josephus, and how 
Thuoris was substituted for Phuoro, or King Nile. 
When we consider that these dates have nothing but 
the erroneous computation of Josephus to support 
them, and are dependent upon the ridiculous and un- 
tenable contention that the Hamite invaders of Egypt 
were the Children of Israel, it seems incredible that 
men of science should consider them worthy of seri- 
ous consideration. The error has also made itself felt 
in Babylonian and Assyrian chronology. 

Petrie, for example, places the beginning of the 
Eighteenth Dynasty at 1587 B. C, basing himself 
upon what he supposes to be ^'absolute dates" calcu- 
lated by the Viennese astronomer, Dr. Mahler, from 
the risings of Sirius and the new moons. Dr. Mahler, 
for instance, fixes the fifty-three years and eleven 
months of Thothmes III between March 20th, 1503 
B. C, and February 14th, 1449 B. C. Rev. A. H. 
Sayce tells us that this ''Viennese astronomer," with 
the help of certain astronomical "data" furnished by 
the monuments, determined the exact date of the 
reign of Ramesses II as extending from 1348 B. C. 
to 1281 B. C. Now, these dates are false and contra- 
dictory upon their face. In the first place, they allow 
but one hundred and one years between the death of 
Thothmes III and the accession, as sole-king, of 
Ramesses II, when the actual interval was one hun- 
dred and thirty-nine years. Such inaccuracies are 
irreconcilable with absolute astronomical dates. In 
the second place, the date 1281 B. C. for the end of 



376 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

the reign of Ramesses II would bring the Exodus 
(which took place in the fifth year of the reign of 
Menophthah) within two hundred and sixty-six years 
of the Building of Solomon's Temple. There were 
four hundred and eighty years between the Exodus 
and the Building of the Temple, and the history and 
genealogies of this period can not be compressed 
within the narrow compass of two hundred and sixty- 
six years. Solomon commenced to build the Temple 
about two years before the accession of Shishak, the 
first king of the Twenty-second Dynasty, for this dy- 
nasty ruled from 1009 B. C. to 789 B. C. The last 
king of the Twenty-first Dynasty (Psusannos, or 
P'su-cha-nut II) reigned thirty-five years. Solomon 
made affinity with this king, and took his daughter in 
marriage. ''And it came to pass in the four hundred 
and eightieth year after the children of Israel were 
come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of 
Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month of Zif, 
which is the second month, that he began to build 
the house of the Eord." Is it not evident that Solo- 
mon selected this Sothiac period of one season of four 
months, or four hundred and eighty years, as a fixed 
date for his great work? We are expressly told that 
his wisdom excelled that of all the children of the 
east country, "and all the wisdom of Egypt." Ac- 
cording to these dates, Solomon mounted the throne 
about 1014 B. C, or five years before the accession 
of Shishak. The Scriptures manifest the agreement 
of this chronology and that of ancient Egypt; for we 
are told, first, that Pharaoh, king of Egypt (Psusan- 



History of Ancient Egypt 377 

nos II), had gone up and taken Gezer, and burnt it 
with fire, and slain the Canaanites that dwelt in the 
city, and given it as a present unto his daughter, Solo- 
mon's wife; second, that Hadad fled to Pharaoh, king 
of Egypt (Shishak), who received him with favor, and 
gave him to wife the sister of his own wife, Tahpenes, 
the queen; and, third, that Jeroboam, when Solomon 
sought to kill him, fled to Egypt, unto Shishak, king 
of Egypt, and was in Egypt until the death of Solo- 
mon. Now, as Shishak took Jerusalem in the fifth 
year of Rehoboam, it follows that Solomon's reign 
could not have exceeded twenty-one or twenty-two 
years, although he is given forty years. I admit that 
the numbers 40, 80, 120, etc., as used in the Scrip- 
tures, are indefinite and approximate only; but, aside 
from this, it is inconceivable how scientists, or as- 
tronomers either, can slash away at chronology with- 
out paying the least attention to contemporaneous 
history and well-established synchronisms. A mo- 
ment's reflection will convince any impartial student 
of the fallacy of attempting to place Ramesses I at 
the beginning of the era 1324 B. C, as Petrie does. 
Let us see where this would land us : 

Era of Menophres, 1324 B. C. 

Ramesses I, i 

1323 B. C. 
Sethos I, 59 

1264 B. C. 
Ramesses II (66 years -|-4-|-2+2 months), . • . . 67 

1 197 B. C. 
Menophthah, to Exodus, 4 

Exodus, . 1193 B. C. 



378 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

This sort of chronology (?) would leave exactly 
one hundred and eighty-two years between the Ex- 
odus and the Building of the Temple, which is pre- 
posterous on its face. 

Dr. Mahler's dates are not much better than these. 
IvCpsius, years ago, demonstrated that the so-called 
"data derived from the monuments" were either mis- 
understood or altogether unreliable. Astronomical 
observations were not recorded on public monu- 
ments; but were registered on papyri, and preserved 
in the libraries of the temples. The inscriptions in 
the tombs, etc., were made by men who understood 
but little about astronomy; whereas the observations 
of the ''risings of the stars," etc., preserved in the 
temples, were made by professional astronomers. As 
to the "new moons" (monumental mention of which 
is exceedingly rare), every one knows that they recur 
in the same order at stated intervals, and can not be 
relied on except as "checks." Again, we must know 
how the regnal years appearing on chance monu- 
ments agree with the reigns to be found in the lists. 
Thus Amenophthis IV dated from his accession as 
joint-king with his father, Amenophthis III. Man- 
etho gave Amenophthis III the thirty-one years and 
ten months of his sole-reign, and Amenophthis IV 
the four or five years of their joint-reign; but, on 
the other hand, he assigned the four or five years of 
the joint-reign of Amenophthis IV and his daughter 
to the latter. In like manner, the fifty-nine years and 
two months of Sethos I include his long joint-reign 
with his father, Ramesses I, for the one year and four 



History of Ancient Egypt 379 

months given to the latter in the lists end at the ac- 
cession of Sethos as joint-king. On the contrary, 
the fifty-nine years and two months of Sethos I ex- 
tend from his accession as joint-king to his death. 

Attempts have been made to use the monumental 
mention of ^'^if-festivals (heb-sed) for chronological 
purposes, but without sufficient examination and 
study of the subject. A thirty years' festival does not, 
as some suppose, correspond to a Sothiac week. 
Brugsch in his latest work (^Egyptologie) called at- 
tention to the fact that the Egyptians called a Sothiac 
month han-ti, a dual form equivalent to two hans. A 
han, therefore, equals sixty years. Just as the earth 
was divided into an upper and lower hemisphere, so 
was the Sothiac month; the upper han being known 
as har, the lower as sed. Now, it is apparent that the 
festival of the beginning of the first han of sixty years 
would be merged in the more important festival of 
the beginning of a new Sothiac month; but the cele- 
bration of the first vS'^^-festival, which occurred at the 
middle of each han-ti, would be an important chrono- 
logical event. The monuments mention the "first" 
hib-sed (lit. sop top, ''first time") in contradistinction 
to the "second" S^c^-festival, which was celebrated at 
the middle of the second han. 

For example, it will be seen that the first Sed- 
festival, at the middle of the han-ti of Pa-chons, 3224 
B. C, fell in the first year of the reign of Tat-ka-ra 
As-as; and the celebration of this "first .S'eJ-festival 
by King Tat-ka-ra, beloved by the spirits of An-nut'' 
etc., is mentioned on an alabaster vase. The second 



380 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

5^f^-festival of this Sothiac month, 3194 B. C, was 
certainly celebrated in the thirty-first year of this 
king's reign. 

Coming down to the han-ti of Pa-uoni, the first 
hib-sed, 3104 B. C, fell in the thirteenth year of the 
reign of Phiops I. A large inscription at Hammamat, 
dated in the eighteenth year {ren-pa-et em ach-et) of 
this king's reign, mentions the ''first ^^^f-festival." 
This date shows that Meri-ra reigned jointly with 
Teta or some other ruler for five years, probably dur- 
ing his minority. Manetho gave these five years to 
Teta (Othoes for Tithoes). ''Ren-pa-et em ach-et,'' 
therefore, refers to the "year after" his accession as 
joint-king. The ''second" hib-sed of this han-ti, 3074 
B. C, fell in the forty-third year of Meri-ra' s reign; 
but on the monuments it would be recorded in his 
forty-eighth year. 

The first hib-sed of the han-ti of Epiphi, 2984 B. C, 
coincided with the seventy-third year of Phiops II, 
and an inscription of his (adjoining that of Unas) at 
Elephantine mentions a vSecZ-festlval. The second 
hib-sed of this month, 2954 B. C, divided the twelve 
years assigned to Nitokris into equal halves. In the 
list bearing the name of Eratosthenes this queen has 
only six, instead of twelve, years. The first hib-sed 
of Mes-har-i, 2864 B. C, as we have seen in the 
Eleventh Dynasty, was duly celebrated in the second 
year of Neb-taui-ra Menthu-hotep. 

Thus four successive vS^c?-festivals are mentioned 
b)^ the kings in whose reigns they occurred according 



History of Ancient Egypt 381 

to our astronomical dates. The ^^(i-festivals men- 
tioned in the inscriptions of the Eighteenth and Nine- 
teenth Dynasties, when correctly appHed, are bound 
to agree with the astronomical dates given; but we 
must always bear in mind that the regnal years which 
appear on the monuments do not, and can not in 
many instances, agree with the chronological num- 
bers employed by Manetho. Thus the first Sed- 
festival of Pachons, 1764 B. C, coincides with the 
second year of the reign assigned to Mephres; but 
how do we know that this queen actually dated her 
monuments from the year 1765? Manetho traces his 
chronology through Amessis, the sister of Amenoph- 
this I and wife of Thothmes I, and Mephres, the 
daughter of Amessis and Thothmes I, ignoring 
Thothmes I and Thothmes 11. It is significant, how- 
ever, that Mephres claimed this festival. 

The first Uh-sed of Payni, 1644 B. C, fell 
in the fourth year of Anchesenaten's reign — that 
is, about the end of the joint-reign of Achenaten and 
his daughter; but no mention of it has yet been found. 

The first kib-sed of Epiphi, 1524 B. C, occurred in 
the thirty-eighth year of the reign of Ramesses II, 
and this king seems to have celebrated it with great 
pomp in different parts of Egypt; but when we come 
to the second ^'eJ-festival of this month, 1494 B. C, 
the coincidence is remarkable, for Menophthah 
mounted the throne as sole monarch in the year 1495 
B. C, and celebrated this festival in the second year 
of his reign. This agrees exactly with Seti's epoch- 



382 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

reign of twenty-three years after the epoch 1584 
B. C, which can not possibly be ascribed to chance. 

Epoch of Epiphi, 1584 B. C. 

Sethos I, as epoch-king Osiropis, 23 

1561 B. C. 

Ramesses II Miamen, 66 

Beginning of Menophthah's reign, 1495 B. C. 

The Exodus, which took place in the fifth year 
of this king's reign, 1491 B. C, will be treated of in 
another chapter. The genealogical succession upon 
the throne, as officially recognized by Ramesses III 
at Medinet Habu, was: i. Menophthah; 2. Sethos 
II; 3. Set-necht; and 4. Ramesses III. We know 
from the monuments that Sethos II reigned jointly 
with Menophthah for several years. If the "death of 
the first-born" is to be taken literally, and not sym- 
bolically, Menophthah's eldest son, who sat on the 
throne with his father, perished before the Exodus. 
There are facts going to show that Sethos II was 
born after his father began to reign. Thus the in- 
vasion of the Libyan and Mediterranean nations 
occurred in his fifth year, the year of the Exodus; 
the settlement of certain Shasu, or Beduin, tribes in 
the deserted district of Goshen, by royal permission, 
took place, according to the official report, in the 
eighth year; and Manetho tells us that Sethos II was 
but five years old when Menophthah and his army 
voluntarily retired to Ethiopia, where they remained 
thirteen years. At the end of this period Menophthah 
and Sethos returned to Egypt, each at the head of a 
separate army. Although Sethos was only eighteen 



History of Ancient Egypt 383 

years of age at the time, it is certain that his father 
had raised him up as joint-king. Now, as Manetho 
gave Menophthah nineteen years and six months, he 
must have given the joint-reign to Sethos II; for the 
seven years previous to the settlement of the Shasu 
tribes in Goshen and the thirteen years of the exile 
in Ethiopia give us a reign of at least nineteen years 
and six months. After the Canaanites had been ex- 
pelled from Egypt and pursued to the bounds of 
Syria, Menophthah found time to construct a funerary 
temiple out of material taken from a building erected 
by Amenhotep III, and to set up a granite tablet 
recording his great victory, or, we should say, his 
son's victory; and Sethos II had time to erect monu- 
ments, carve statues of himself, and prepare a rock- 
cut tomb in the Biban-el-moluk. But, unless the 
Harris papyrus refers to these ill-fated thirteen years, 
the short period of peace and prosperity which fol- 
lowed this victory was succeeded by another period 
of anarchy and confusion "lasting many years," dur- 
ing which a Syrian — that is, Chal — named Ar-sii 
usurped the government, and tyrannized over the 
people. It can not be denied that there is a striking 
resemblance between the names of Manetho's Osar- 
siph and this Arsu, for the ar of Arsii, like the ar of 
Osar, is written with the sign of the eye. 

In his chronological list of legitimate kings, Man- 
etho gave Sethos II the entire fifty-one years from 
the end of Menophthah's reign, 1476 B. C, to the 
beginning of Set-nechfs reign, 1425 B. C. But it is 
certain that he also mentioned the achtal rulers dur- 



384 A Self-Verifying Chronological 

ing this period, as he had done with respect to Achen- 
aten and his successors. The author of the pseudo- 
Sothis list made use of a number of these reigns to 
fill out the first portion of his bogus Hst, where they 
now appear immediately before the seven kings of the 
Twentieth Dynasty. We copy the following: 

Date of Bxodus, 1491 B. C. 

11. Akesephthres, 13 

1478 B. C. 

12. Agchoreus, 9 

1469 B. C. 

13. Armiyses, 4 

1465 B. C. 

14. Chamois, 12 . 

1453 B. C. 

15. Miamus, 14 

1439 B. C. 

16. Amesesis, 65 

1374 B. C. 

17. Oyses, 50 

1324 B. C. 

These names are so corrupt that it is difficult to 
identify them, and they no longer succeed one an- 
other in their original order. 

Among these, "Chamois" is the epoch-title of the 
king who ruled at Thebes from 1464 B. C. to 1452 
B. C, for Chamois is a very accurate transcription 
of Cha-m-uas, "Crowned in Thebes." "Oyses" was 
originally Sethosis, whose fifty-one years have been 
changed to fifty. This reign appears a second time 
as No. 58, Thuoris, fifty years. 



A Self- Verifying Chronological 385 

Amesesis was originally Ramesses, the Rampses 
of Eusebius, with sixty-five years, and, strange to say, 
Nos. 53 and 54 of this bogus list, before the first was 
changed by Goar, stood thus: 

53. Kertos (Sethos), i6 years 

54. Rampsis (Ramesses III), 45 

Total, 61 " 

These are the identical sixty-one years assigned 
by Manetho to Rampsakes in his chronological list, 
showing that Sethos II has the fifty-one years be- 
tween the reign of Menophthah and the accession 
of Set-necht, and that Rampsakes has the sixteen years 
of Set-necht, in addition to his own forty-five. The 
emendation of Goar, whereby Kertos received twenty 
years to fill out the interval between A. M. 4187 and 
A. M. 4207, agrees with the sixty-six years assigned 
to Rampsis by Eusebius. 

The thirteen years of Akesephthres naturally sug- 
gest the thirteen years of Menophtah's voluntary exile 
in Ethiopia. It can not be a freak of chance that 
when they are placed immediately after the true date 
of the Exodus, the epoch-reign "Chamois" coincides 
with the epoch of Mesori, 1464 B. C. — for the ap- 
parent difference of one year is due to the odd months 
and days — and the reign of Ramesses, the first king 
of the Twentieth Dynasty, coincides exactly with the 
great Sothiac Era, 1324 B. C. It is evident that these 
names were arranged according to the epochs before 
they were transferred, and that the forger of the 
pseudo-Sothis List knew that Manetho's Lists were so 
25 



386 A Self-Verifying Chronological 

arranged. The fifty-fifth king of the pseudo-Sothis 
List is "Amenses, who is also Ammenemes, twenty-six 
years," which shows that the reigns of Amenophthes 
and Amenemes had been amalgamated, after Amen- 
ephthes was put in the place of Ramesses IV; for 
Amenses is Smendes, the first king of the Twenty- 
first Dynasty. The insertion of Thuoris as the last 
king of this dynasty crowded out Ramesses IV. The 
Lists of Africanus and Eusebius can be harmonized 
as follows : 



3. Sethos, . . . 

4. Ramps-hakes, 

5. Ramesses IV, 

6. Ameueptithis, 

7. Amenemes, . 
Add Thuoris, 



51 years 3. Sethos, . . . .51 years 

61 " 4. Rampses, ... 61 " 

8 " 5. (Ramesses), . . 8 " 

20 " 6. Amenepthes, ") ^^ 

5 " 7. Amenemes, ] " 

7 " Add Thuoris, . 7 " 



Total, ... 152 " 152 " 

Thus Ramesses III reigned forty-five years, and 
his three sons thirty-three years, together seventy- 
eight years. 

Just as Manetho, in the Eighteenth Dynasty, 
traced the chronology through Achenaten and his two 
daughters, giving them thirty-six years and nine 
months, but in the official list gave Horus these 
thirty-six years and nine months, so did he, in the 
Nineteenth Dynasty, enumerate the actual rulers from 
the date of the Flight of Menophthah to the accession 
of ^'Sethosis and Ramesses," also showing how the 
numbers had been apportioned among the kings of 
the recognized official line. 



History of Ancient Egypt 387 



EPOCH -REIGNS OF MANETHO'S SECOND 
SOTHIAC CYCLE 

But little remains to be said about the epoch- 
reigns of Manetho's Second Sothiac Cycle. At the 
close of the Twelfth Dynasty we were forced to bid 
farewell to Eratosthenes, whose epoch-reigns afforded 
us so much valuable assistance in the First Cycle. 
For the entire period of four hundred and ninety- 
three years between the Twelfth and Hyksos Dy- 
nasties the separate reigns are altogether wanting in 
the Manethonian Lists. It is true that the throne- 
titles of nearly all the kings of the Thirteenth and 
Fifteenth Dynasties appear in whole or in part upon 
fragments of the Turin papyrus, and that in several 
instances where the corresponding portions of the 
papyrus are not lost, the phrase "ari-en-ef em su- 
teniu'' serves to mark the epoch-reigns; but these 
throne-titles seldom afford any clue to the proper, or 
sa-7'a, names of the kings, except where they are re- 
vealed by independent monuments bearing both the 
throne and sa-ra titles. 

Although we have to grope our way without the 
assistance of the epoch-reigns of Eratosthenes, and 
without the proper names and separate reigns of the 
kings, it is in this period that the papyrus shows most 
satisfactorily that the Sothiac epochs were carefully 
marked, and the reigns accurately registered in years, 
months, and days. We have shown that the title, 
lan-u Ah, assumed by the Theban King Uah-ah-ra, 
marks him, beyond a doubt, as a contemporary of the 



388 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

Hyksos King Pa-ian, who reigned thirty years after 
the great epoch of Phamenoth, 2064 B. C, under the 
epoch-title Rohk-les, or Archies. Is it not significant 
that up to this point (this ian or ab) we find titles 
compounded with cha, "rising," such as Cha-anch-ra, 
Cha-nofer-ra, and Cha-hotep-ra; but that the very mo- 
ment the sun turns this point {iamt ah) and begins to 
descend, the element cha disappears? To contend 
that this was an accident or chance is to beg the ques- 
tion. We might as well contend that Psammetichos 
I, whose reign reached to within six years of the 
epoch 604 B. C, one cycle later, accidentally or by 
mere chance chose the identical title, Uah-ab-ra, borne 
by his predecessor of the Sixteenth Dynasty. An 
epoch-reign, such as that of "Archies, thirty years," 
is a wonderful thing, for it bears upon its face an 
absolute date, astronomically ascertained and fixed, 
and all we need to do to obtain the most accurate 
chronology is simply to place it where it belongs. 
The following Sothiac list of the Second Cycle, there- 
fore, may be accepted as accurate. The epoch-reign 
of Amenemes I, before the Era 2784 B. C, has been 
given and fully explained in the First Cycle. Begin- 
ning at this era, the main or chronological Hne is as 
follows : 

Bra of Amenemes, 2784 B. C. 

Usertosis, including last 13 years of Amenemes, . 46 

2738 B. C. 
Amenemes II, 38 

2700 B. C. 
Usertosis II, 17 

2683 B. C. 



History of Ancient Egypt 3S9 

Brought forward, 2683 B. C. 

Usertosis III, before epoch, as Phuoro, 19 

Epoch of Paopi, 2664 B. C. 

Utersosis III, after epoch, 19 

2645 B. C. 
Amenemes III, or Mares, ....••.... 42 

2603 B. C. 
Amenemes IV, 9 

2594 B. C. 
Skeminofris, . . < 4 

2590 B. C. 
Thirteenth Dynasty, Chu-taui-ra, 41 

2549 B. C. 
Thirteenth Dynasty, Sochevi-ka-ra, as Siphthah, 5 

Epoch of Athyr, 2544 B. C. 

Thirteenth Dynasty, after epoch, 196 

^ B. C. 
Fifteenth Dynasty, 251 

2097 B. C. 
Sethos, or Saites, 19 

2078 B.C. 
Pa-ian, before epoch, 14 

2064 B. C. 
Pa-ian, after epoch, as Archies, 30 

2034 B. C. 
Apophis I, 61 

"5^ B.C. 
Sethos, before epoch, 29 

1944 B. C. 
Sethos, after epoch, as Asas, 20 

1924 B. C. 
lannas 50 

1874 B. C. 
Apophis II, 37 

l8^ B. C. 



390 A Self-Verifying Chronological 

Brought forward, 1837 B. C. 

Chebros, before epoch, 13 

1824 B. C. 
Aahmes, after epoch of Pachons, 25 

1799 B. C. 
Amenophis I, 14 

Tts^b.c 

Amesses, sister, 20 

TtS^B.C. 
Mephres, daughter, 22 

1743 B. C. 
Mephra-Tuthmosis, 13 

1730 B. C. 
Tuthmosis, before epoch of Payni, 26 

1704 B. C. 
Amenophis II, after epoch, as Harmais, 4 

1700 B. C. 
Tuthmosis IV, 10 

1690 B, C. 
Amenophis III, 32 

l6^ B. C. 
Achenaten, or Acherres, 12 

r646B.C. 
Anchenaten, his daughter, 12 

1634 B. C. 
Anchesaten, another daughter, ......... 13 

162 1 B. C. 
Ramesses I, i 

1620 B. C. 
Sethos, before epoch of Bpiphi, 36 

TsS^B.C. 
Sethos, after epoch, as " Osiropis," 23 

T^B.C. 
Ramesses Miamen, 66 

1495 B. C. 



History of Ancient Egypt 391 

Brought forward, 1495 B. C. 

Menophthah, 19 

1476 B. C. 
Sethos II, etc., before epoch, 12 

1464 B. C. 
"Chamois," 12 

1452 B. C. 
Sethos, after Chamois (51-24), 27 

1425 B. C. 
Rampsakes, 61 

1364 B. C. 
Ramesses IV (sole reign), 8 

T^B.C. 
Amenephthes, 20 

"^B.C. 
Amenemes, 5 

1331 B. C. 
Ramesses, as epoch-king " Thuoris," 7 

Era of Menophres, 1324 B, C. 

THE PERIOD OF JOSEPH'S ADMINISTRA- 
TION IN EGYPT, IN THE LIGHT OF THE 
TEL-EL-AMARNA CLAY-TABLETS 

We have seen that Ham and Japheth were racial 
governments, established in the Delta about 2448 
B. C, and that the names 'Aamu and Ja-petit are un- 
mistakably and distinctively Egyptian. The remain- 
ing "son of Noah," Shem, was likewise a government 
established by Shemites in the Delta about the same 
time. The name Shem is also unmistakably Egyp- 
tian. It is simply shem-u, "aliens, foreigners," which 
has come down to us unchanged in the Coptic 
"shemmo," which has the same meaning. It follows 



39^ A Self-Verifying Chronological 

that the ''sons" of this Shem, such as Elam, or Persia, 
Assur, or Assyria, Aram, or Syria, etc., could not have 
been individuals, but were likewise nations or govern- 
ments. 

The conquest of Lower Egypt by the 'Aamu fell 
with the greatest force upon the Shem-u, who were 
established in Goshen and vicinity, and we accord- 
ingly find that Shem and Japheth retired backwards — 
that is, up the Nile — to cover the nakedness or weak- 
ness of Noah. We are told that "Shem was a hundred 
years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the 
flood." "Arphaxad begat Salah, and Salah begat 
Eber." 

Now, before we analyze and explain this name 
Eber, we will, for illustration, examine the immediate 
posterity of Ham. We are told that the "sons of 
Ham" were Cush, Mizraim, Phut, and Canaan. 
These are so plainly the names of national govern- 
ments, that no scholar would even dream of calling 
them individuals. In Cush we see the Kashi estab- 
lished in Elam and Babylonia, 'Aamu pure and simple; 
in Mizraim, or the two Mizors, the Hyksos govern- 
ment over Upper and Lower Egypt, under the Seven- 
teenth Dynasty; and in Canaan, the people of 
Kananna or Kinachi, the land of Canaan. The Hit- 
tites (Heth, Cheta), who afterwards became so power- 
ful and celebrated, were derived from the 'Aamu 
through the Canaanites, for Moses tells us explicitly 
that "Canaan begat Sidon, his first-born, and Heth, 
and the Jebusite, and the Amorite, and the Girgasite, 
and the Hivite, and the Arkite," etc. ; "and afterward 



History of Ancient Egypt 393 

were the families of the Canaanites spread abroad." 
Here Sidon, the famous city, and Heth, the Hittites, 
are plainly not individuals, and the writer, recogniz- 
ing the fact, goes over to the Jebusites, Amorites, 
Girgasites, etc. The border of these nations orig- 
inally was from Sidon to Gaza; but during the period 
now under consideration the Hittites were north of 
the Amorites in the region of the Cappadocian Moun- 
tains. If we look upon Ham and Canaan as indi- 
viduals, it seems strange that the son was cursed for 
the sin of the father; but when we consider that Ham 
fraternized with the ' Aamu invaders of Egypt, and 
eventually founded a dynasty which governed Egypt 
two hundred and sixty years, it is natural that the 
Egyptians afterwards slaked their anger upon these 
people in Canaan and Syria. The kings of the Eigh- 
teenth Dynasty avenged themselves upon the unfor- 
tunate Canaanites, and the children of Eber com- 
pleted the work by almost exterminating them to the 
very roots. 

It is not necessary to decide where actual individ- 
uals first succeed governments in the long list of the 
"generations" of Adam contained in Genesis; but it 
can not escape the attention of the most casual reader 
of the Bible that even after the Exodus the tribes of 
Israel are sometimes introduced as individuals; for 
example, after the death of Joshua we read in the 
first chapter of the Book of Judges : 

"And Judah said unto Simeon, his brother. Come 
up to me into my lot, that we may fight against the 
Canaanites; and I likewise will go with thee into thy 



394 ^ Self-Verifying Chronological 

lot. So Simeon went with him. And Judah went up ; 
and the Lord deUvered the Canaanites and Perizzites 
into their hands : and they slew of them in Bezek ten 
thouand men." 

Here, where Palestine itself was the scene of 
action, and the events described comparatively near 
in time, even those who insist upon a literal construc- 
tion of the text do not pretend that Judah and Simeon 
were individuals, merely because they appear as 
brothers speaking to one another, and using personal 
pronouns, etc.; but they bend the plain meaning of 
the words in order to make them conform to the 
actual facts. It is different, however, where the his- 
torical events, with which the narrative must agree 
in order to be true, took place, at much earlier dates, 
in distant countries like Egypt, for instance; for the 
revisers, interpreters, and embellishers of the ancient 
text have in almost every instance mistaken the 
names of governments, nations, tribes, etc., for indi- 
viduals. Bearing in mind that Bible chronology prior 
to the Exodus is Egyptian chronology, we find that 
Arphaxad was born two years after the Hyksos In- 
vasion, and Jacob about one year after the Expulsion 
of the Hyksos. The birth of each follows immediately 
after the destruction of a pre-existing government. 
What does this indicate? 

Among the nations and tribes arrayed against 
Thothmes III at Megiddo, in the twenty-third year 
of his reign (1732 B. C), were the people of Jacob-el. 
A catalogue of the various people captured by this 
king after the surrender of the city, engraved upon 



History of Ancient Egypt 395 

one of the propyla of the Temple of Karnak, has for- 
tunately come down to us. The superscription, ac- 
cording to Brugsch, reads as follows: 

*'This is the catalogue of the inhabitants of Upper 
Ruthen (Canaan), whom His Holiness (Thothmes 
HI) captured in the hostile town of Megiddo. His 
Holiness carried away their children as living pris- 
oners to the city of Thebes, to fill the house of his 
father. Amen, ... on the first victorious cam- 
paign," etc. 

Now, the one hundred and second name in this 
catalogue is ''lacoh-eV {lakop-el, not lakop-ar), and, 
strange to say, the same name appears on scarabs of 
the Hyksos type found in Egypt, written as follows: 
Sa ra lakop-el ta anch, "Son of Ra, Jacob-el, giving 
life," etc. 

These scarabs are like those of the Hyk-satvt Ach- 
ian, or "lannos," and unquestionably belong to the 
same period. The title, "Son of Ra, giving life," in- 
dicates that Jacob-el claimed to be a Pharaoh, perhaps 
a successor in Canaan of the unfortunate Hyksos 
King, Apophis 11. 

The government of the Israelites, like that of the 
Egyptians, was modeled after the solar system, with 
Israel as Ra, or central sun, and the twelve tribes as 
the signs of the Zodiac, or months. 

This appears incidentally from Joseph's second 
dream, where Jacob and his wife and sons are sym- 
bolized as the sun, moon, and stars. In the dream 
the sun, moon, and eleven stars made obeisance to 
Joseph, the twelfth star. Joseph told this dream to 



S96 A Self-Verifying Chronological 

his father. Jacob rebuked him, saying : "What is this 
dream that thou hast dreamed? Shall I and thy 
mother and thy brethren indeed come to bow down 
ourselves to thee to the earth?" 

We have seen that the Hyksos kings in Egypt 
assumed the name of their "lord god" Sutech, to wit, 
Set, Set-nubti, Set-an, etc. Can we not safely assume 
that they continued this custom in Canaan, immedi- 
ately after their expulsion from Egypt? Petrie sees 
some connection between the name Jacob-el and the 
Syrian god Jacob, who, he says, "is otherwise known 
as Yacoh-el in the list of Thothmes III, and Baal 
Akabos on an altar of the second century A. D." 

This is an error as to the catalogue of Thothmes 
III, which is a list of the inhabitants of various places; 
but Baal Akabos identifies Jacob with Sutech through 
Bel, or lord. 

All the posterity of Shem, prior to Jacob or Israel, 
were born during the five hundred and eleven years 
of 'Aamu domination over Egypt. The death of 
Shem occurred about the time of the Hyksos Expul- 
sion. The name of Eber, who is called "the father 
of the Hebrews," appears on monuments of the Six- 
teenth, Eighteenth, Nineteenth, and Twentieth Dy- 
nasties, as Aper-n, or Eper-ii. These Hebrews dwelt 
in the land of Goshen and in the district now known 
as the Wady Tumilat, where they pastured their 
flocks and attended to Pharaoh's horses. They were 
the descendants of the original Shemu, and many of 
them remained in their old seats after the Exodus. 
In the thirty-second year of Ramesses III, or about 



History of Ancient Egypt 397 

1394 B. C, they are mentioned in the great Harris 
papyrus as "settled people," dwelling in Heliopolis 
or vicinity, and they are again mentioned under 
Ramesses IV. 

According to the Bible account, the "Dispersion" 
took place in the days of Peleg, the son of Eber. We 
must, therefore, seek the Biblical Eber in Egypt, and 
not in Babylonia. The Shemites who remained in 
Egypt after the Dispersion continued to bear the old 
name of "Aper-u/' but those that emigrated to other 
countries naturally assumed different names. From 
the Egyptian point of view the chief division of the 
Shemii was into Aperu, or "settled people," and 
Ahramu, or nomads. 

Aper, or Eper, the root from which Aper-u, or 
Aper-i-u, is derived, has the fundamental meaning of 
"settled," "provided for," etc. Abram, on the contrary, 
has the meaning of "migrating," "roaming," "wan- 
dering," etc., and is derived from the name of a cer- 
tain species of migratory fish found in the Nile. The 
name of this fish has come down to us in the Greek 
form, "Abramis." One of the offices held by Amten, 
who lived at the close of the Third Dynasty, was that 
of "abram," so called because an abram, in the dis- 
charge of his official duties, moved from place to 
place like our circuit judges in former times. In 
Amten's tomb abram is written with a hieroglyph rep- 
resenting this migratory fish. Thus Eber and Abram, 
before they were mistaken for persons, represented 
the two divisions of the Egyptian Shemii, to wit, the 
"seated people" and the nomads. The ancient Ger- 



398 4 Self-- Verifying Chronological 

mans likewise made a distinction between Saxons 
(Sassen)or ''seated people," and Snabians (Suevi from 
schweben) or "wandering people." The migratory 
Shemites, after leaving Egypt, roamed over the pas- 
tures of Canaan and Syria, and, arriving at the banks 
of the Euphrates, continued on down that stream 
until they came to Lower Babylonia. We are told 
that ''Haran died before his father, Terah, in the land 
of his nativity, in Ur of the Chaldees," and that Terah 
took Abram and Lot and went forth from Ur of the 
Chaldees, to go into the land of Canaan, and came to 
Haran of Mesopotamia and dwelt there. 

Thus Bible history proper begins about 1971 
B. C, when Abram and Lot removed from Meso- 
potamia to take up their abode in Canaan. Premis- 
ing that the date of the Exodus was four hundred and 
eighty years, or four Sothiac months, before the 
building of the Temple, we will first endeavor to 
accurately fix the length of the ''Sojourn in Egypt;" 
for many, shutting their eyes to the express state- 
ments of the Bible, still persist in fixing it at four 
hundred or four hundred and thirty years. 

The Septuagint, which dates from circa 250 B. C, 
reads thus: "Now the sojourning of the children of 
Israel, who dwelt in Egypt and in the land of Canaan, 
was four hundred and thirty years." (Exodus xii, 40.) 

The Samaritan Pentateuch agrees with this, ex- 
cept that the order of the countries is reversed, to wit, 
*^who dwelt in the land of Canaan and in the land of 
Mizraim." 

The text of Exodus used by Paul read the same 



History of Ancient Egypt 399 

way, because he found the interval between the Cove- 
nant with Abram and the Law at Sinai to be four hun- 
dred and thirty years. (Galatians iii, 17.) 

Josephus says the Hebrews "left Egypt in the 
month of Xanthicus, on the fifteenth day of the lunar 
month, four hundred and thirty years after our fore- 
father Abraham came into Canaan, but two hundred 
and fifteen years after Jacob removed into Egypt." 
(Antiquities, Book II, Chapter xv, Section 2.) 

Eusebius, in his Chronicon, also assigns two hun- 
dred and fifteen years only to the whole time of the 
Sojourn in Egypt. He makes the period from the 
first year of Abram to the Exodus five hundred and 
five years, and the period from the Covenant to the 
Exodus four hundred and thirty years. It is per- 
fectly evident that in the so-called "Authorized 
Text," where verse 40 now reads, "Now the sojourn- 
ing of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was 
four hundred and thirty years," the words, "in the 
land of Canaan," have been negligently or intention- 
ally omitted. Genesis xv, 13, which reads, "Know 
thou beforehand that thy seed shall be a stranger in a 
land not their own, and that they shall bring them 
under bondage and afflict them four hundred years," 
should be read in connection with Genesis xv, 16, 
where it is foretold that the seed of Abraham would 
return in the fourth generation, which statement 
agrees with the genealogies in Genesis and Exodus. 
We have in a direct line Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Levi, 
Kohath, Amram, and Moses, seven in all, but four 
only in Egypt, Abraham was seventy-five years old 



400 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

when he left Haran. From this date to the birth of 
Isaac we have twenty-five years; from the birth of 
Isaac to the birth of Jacob, sixty years; and from the 
birth of Jacob to the settlement in Goshen, one hun- 
dred and thirty years; in all two hundred and fifteen 
years! This would give us two hundred and fifteen 
years from the Covenant to the Settlement in Egypt, 
and two hundred and fifteen years for the Sojourn in 
Egypt; in all four hundred and thirty years. Thus 
the correct date for the Settlement in Egypt, accord- 
ing to Bible numbers, is 1706 B. C, or six years 
before the death of Thothmes III. 

We have seen that Thothmes III and Amenhotep 
II ruled jointly for more than four years, for both 
were epoch-kings in 1704 B. C. The joint-reign may 
have extended back to 171 5 B. C, when the seven 
years of plenty began; and it is probable that Amen- 
hotep II was the virtual ruler at that time. The last 
eighty years of Joseph's life begin at this date, and 
end about 1635 B. C. In other words, the period of 
Joseph closes at the accession of Har-em-heb as king 
of Egypt. This period coincides exactly with the 
period of Asiatic ascendency at the Egyptian court. 
This being true, what do the monuments reveal con- 
cerning the administration of an a-don bearing the 
name of Joseph? While we must admit that no 
monument referring to an a-don, or like officer, bear- 
ing this name, has yet been discovered, the Tel-el- 
Amarna clay-tablets show that under King Amen- 
hotep IV, or Ach-en-res, a Mesopotamian named 
Dudu, or Tutu, did fill the office of Adon, and govern 



History of Ancient Egypt 401 

the land in the name of Pharaoh. In this connection 
we can not refrain from calHng attention to a remark 
inserted immediately after the reign of Amenophis 
III, or Memnon, in the pseudo-Sothis hst, according 
to which certain Ethiopians (Kashi, or Cushites!) 
from the River Indus (?) were settled in Egypt during 
his reign. The remark, in its present form, is inten- 
tionally corrupt and misleading; but it was undoubt- 
edly taken from a remark found in Manetho's "Book 
of Sothis." In my opinion, it originally read, in 
effect, that under Amenophis II, the ludah (Yaudah), 
a tribe of Cushites, from Mesopotamia (not "^thi- 
opes apo Indu Potamu") were settled in Egypt. As 
the name Amenophthis II has been crowded out of 
the lists, it is probable that this remark was at first 
attached to his reign; but it is significant that the 
official correspondence of Tel-el Amarna, which dates 
from the reign of Amenophthis IV and the last years 
of the reign of Amenophthis III, refers to the "Yau- 
dah" (ludah), who were then near Mesopotamia, and 
preparations incident to their projected removal. It 
appears from this correspondence that at this time 
the Hittites (Chetd) were seated north of Aleppo and 
Tunip (Tennib), and the Amorites (Amurri) immedi- 
ately south of them, so that the land of Amurri could 
not have been far from Padan-aram, where Jacob 
reared his family, and the "Yaudah," who were about 
to be removed, were in or near the land of Amurri; 
in fact, according to Rev. A. H. Sayce, the type of the 
Israelites, as shown by the monumental representa- 
tions, is distinctively Amorite. The use of the term 
26 



402 A Self-Verifying Chronological 

"Ethiopians" — that is, Kashi, or Cushites — is ex- 
plained by the monuments, which again and again 
mention the 'Aamu of this region; for Cush was a 
son of Ham, and Manetho, who wrote in Greek, nec- 
essarily used the Greek word for Kashi. The all- 
important point is, that Manetho, in his list of the 
Eighteenth Dynasty, and in connection with a king 
named Amenhotep, mentioned the settlement of cer- 
tain Mesopotamians in Egypt; for Ethiopians, or 
Kashi, from the river Indus is an absurdity upon its 
face. Of course, the Israelites, as we know them, 
were not Kashi, or Ethiopians ; but as they came from 
Lower Babylonia, the home, par excellence, of these 
people, they were naturally classed with them, and 
described as Cushites by the Egyptians. 

The names compounded with "yah" {iah, aah, io), 
such as Yahii-dah, Yah-kop, Yah-saph, Yah-petu, etc., 
offer a promising field for the scientist; but we can 
not stop to explore it here. 

If the settlement of Israel in Goshen actually took 
place about the beginning of the joint-reign of Amen- 
hotep III and Amenhotep IV. (ca. 1658 B. C.), we 
would have to shorten the period of the Sojourn in 
Egypt about forty-eight years, or place the Exodus 
towards the close of the interregnum between Me- 
nophthah's death and the accession of Sef-necht, which 
could not be harmonized with the conditions and 
surroundings of the Bible narrative. It is safer, there- 
fore, to provisionally follow the chronological dates, 
according to which the settlement in Egypt took 
place in the joint-reign of Amenophthis II and Thoth- 



History of Ancient Egypt 403 

mes III, and the Exodus in the fifth year of the reign 
of Menophthah. The Tel-el Amarna correspondence 
shows conclusively that Canaan had been reduced to 
the condition of an Egyptian province, governed by 
Egyptian officials, and held in subjection by garrisons 
of Egyptian troops. This condition continued unim- 
paired from the twenty-third year of Thothmes III 
to the sole reign of Achenaten, a period of over sev- 
enty years. In fact, we can safely place the conquest 
of Canaan and Syria by Thothmes I at about 1785 
B. C, so that, notwithstanding Canaan was subject 
to the Hyksos when Jacob was born, it was a part of 
Egypt when Jacob and his sons — that is, the Israel- 
ites — removed from Mesopotamia and settled there. 
The Bible narrative agrees with this state of things in 
every particular. Putiphar, to whom Joseph was 
sold, bears a pure Egyptian name, and is called "an 
officer of Pharaoh, captain of the guard, an Egyptian.'' 
The name is Pa-tu-ph'ra, "The Gift of the Sun," for 
the definite article before Ra excludes Pa-fii-har, "The 
Gift of Horus." The same name, rendered Puti- 
pherah — that is, Pa-tii-pa-ra or Pa-tu-pha-ra — was 
borne by the priest of On (Heliopolis), the father of 
Asenath, Joseph's wife. The name Asenath is also 
Egyptian. None of these names are Hyksos, or 
Hamite. Joseph's title, Saf-na-ta-pa-anchu, "Savior 
of the Land of the Living," as we have already 
pointed out, is likewise Egyptian. Pharaoh had taken 
up his residence in Memphis, which accounts for his 
marrying Joseph to Asenath, daughter of the priest 
of Heliopolis. Scarabs of Amenhotep II inform us 



404 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

that he was ^'born at Memphis," showing that, al- 
though the Eighteenth Dynasty was Theban, Thoth- 
mes III resided at Memphis when his son and suc- 
cessor was born. If the Pharaoh of Joseph had been 
the Hyksos Apophis II, who held his court at Avaris, 
he would have married Joseph to a daughter of the 
priest of Sutech, his so-called "lord god." 

At the feast given by Joseph to his brethren, tables 
were set apart for Joseph by himself, for his brethren 
by themselves, and for the Egyptians, which did eat 
with him, by themselves; ''because the Egyptians 
might not eat bread with the Hebrews; for that is an 
abomination unto the Egyptians." The text de- 
scribes those that ate with Joseph and his brethren as 
''Egyptians," and shows that a well-known custom 
of the Egyptians made it imperative for the He- 
brews, including Joseph, to eat at separate tables. It 
is a mystery to me how any one, especially orthodox 
theologians, could so far mistake the plain meaning 
of the text as to place this occurrence under the 
Hyksos. 

There can be no doubt as to where the children 
of Israel dwelt while in Egypt. Joseph says to his 
brethren : "So now it was not you that sent me hither, 
but God : and he hath made me a councillor {ah) unto 
Pharaoh, and lord of all his house, and a ruler 
throughout all the land of Egypt. Haste ye, and 
go up to my father, and say unto him, Thus saith thy 
son Joseph. . . . And thou shalt dwell in the 
land of Goshen, and thou shalt be near unto me." 
After this we read: "And they [Jacob and his sons] 



History of Ancient Egypt 405 

came into the land of Goshen. And Joseph made 
ready his chariot, and went up to meet Israel, his 
father, to Goshen." 

Joseph tells Pharaoh that his father and brethren, 
and their flocks and herds, are in the land of Goshen. 
Pharaoh directed Joseph to make them dwell in the 
best of the land; ''in the land of Goshen let them 
dwell," adding, ''and if thou knowest any men of 
activity among them, then make them rulers over my 
cattle." "And Joseph placed his father and his breth- 
ren, and gave them a possession in the land of Egypt, 
in the best of the land, in the land of Ramesses, as 
Pharaoh had commanded." 

The land of Goshen was the district along the 
Pelusiac branch of the Nile, between Heliopolis and 
Tanis. It is here called "the land of Ramesses," 
which is anachronistic by nearly two hundred years; 
for Seti I and Ramesses II added a new quarter, or 
temple-city, to Tanis, which was called the "City of 
Ramesses," in honor of Ramesses I, who began to 
reign about 1622 B. C, and was the "new king who 
knew not Joseph." The new city, upon which the 
Israelites were forced to do so much unwilling labor, 
became the royal residence, and was so celebrated in 
the times of Moses, that the land of Goshen was 
named after it, "the land of Ramesses." The expres- 
sion, "For every shepherd is an abomination unto the 
Egyptians," points unmistakably to a native Egyp- 
tian dynasty, and can not be made to fit into the 
period of Hyksos rule. 

When Joseph went up to bury his father, he was 



4o6 A Self-Verifying Chronological 

accompanied by a very great company, to wit: the 
servants of Pharaoh, the elders of his house, the elders 
of the land of Egypt, the house of Joseph, and his 
brethren, and moreover chariots and horsemen; 
which shows that Canaan was an Egyptian province 
at the time, for such a procession through a hostile 
country is inconceivable. 

The inhabitants of Canaan regarded the Israelites 
as Canaanites; but they were naturally astonished to 
see the "joint mourning" of Egyptians and Canaan- 
ites at the threshing-floor of Atad beyond Jordan, and 
they called the name of the place ''Abel-mizraim," in 
commemoration of this extraordinary event. In this 
compound name, Abel symbolizes the Egyptians, 
and Mizraim the Canaanites, or Hyksos in Canaan. 
"Abel and Mizraim," as here used, is equivalent to 
Abel and Cain. The 'Aamii, while they governed 
Egypt, were called Mizraim; but afterwards, while 
in Canaan, they were called Cain, or Canaan. Now, 
strange as it may appear, a fortuitous discovery re- 
cently made in Egypt discloses exactly such a state 
of affairs in Egypt and Canaan as this event presup- 
poses. 

Among the inscribed clay-tablets found beneath 
the ruins of Ach-en-res' palace at Tel-el-Amarna are 
many letters or reports from the officials stationed in 
Canaan and Syria. These reports show that these 
countries to the southern boundary of the land of 
Cheta, which was north of Aleppo {'Alebu) and Ten- 
neb (Tenep), were Egyptian provinces, garrisoned by 
Egyptian troops and governed by Egyptian officials. 



History of Ancient- Egypt 40^ 

Owing to centuries of Hamite, or Cushite, domina- 
tion, the Babylonian language and cuneiform system 
of writing were in common use. 

According to the Babylonian chronology of 
Berossos (see my restoration thereof in another chap- 
ter), the Median {'Aamii) conquest of that region 
took place in the year 2348 B. C. First of all, eight 
Median, or Elamite, tyrants dominated Western Asia, 
including Canaan, two hundred and twenty-four 
years — that is, from 2348 B. C. to 2124 B. C. Then 
eleven Elamite kings, of another dynasty, ruled over 
Babylonia for one hundred and forty-eight years, or 
from 2124 B. C. to 1976 B. C. The year 1976 B. C. 
marks a great revolution or change of dynasty in 
Babylonia, for a native dynasty then succeeded the 
Elamite kings, and reigned (possibly in several dy- 
nasties) four hundred and fifty-eight years; that is, 
from 1976 B. C. to 1518 B. C. As late as 1921 B. C, 
however, a king of this dynasty, to wit, "Amraphel, 
king of Shinar" (Sumir), appears to have been tribu- 
tary to Kudur-lagomer, king of Elam; for he as 
well as Tidal, king of Akkad (Hyk-sat-u) accom- 
panied Kudur-lagomer, the great ''king of kings,'' 
upon his memorable expedition to Canaan. This was 
in the beginning of the reign of the Hyksos King 
Chi-an, or ''Tannos." Afterwards, when Amoses ex- 
pelled the Hyksos from Egypt (1837 B. C), and 
Tuthmoses I carried his victorious arms into Meso- 
potamia {Nahanind), which was about 1785 B. C, 
the kings of Elam and Babylonia were no longer will- 
ing or able to offer any resistance; on the contrary, 



4o8 A Self-Verifying Chronological 

the kings of Babylonia sought to win the good will of 
Thothmes I and Thothmes III by costly presents and 
tribute. By the time of Achenaten, Assyria had grown 
to be as powerful as Babylonia. Assur-uballid, king 
of Assyria (whose "alliance extended afar off like a 
mountain"), carried on a friendly correspondence with 
Achenaten, as he had previously done with Amenoph- 
this III. He writes to Achenaten that his father, 
Assur-nadin-achi, sent an embassy to Egypt with 
twenty talents of gold, and that the ambassadors of 
Achenaten had visited distant lands and journeyed 
to many cities. 

Burna-buryas, king of Babylonia (Kar-dunyas), 
writes as follows: "Ever since my father and thy 
father conferred with one another in amity, they sent 
beautiful presents to one another, but did not ad- 
dress one another in fair and beautiful letters." He 
reminds the king of Egypt that, in the time of Kuri- 
galza, his father, the Kunachians sent word to him 
that they wished to rebel against the government of 
Egypt, and asked for his support, but he refused, 
saying: "If thou art estranged from the king of 
Egypt, my brother, and alliest thyself with another, 
I will not assist you." Burna-buryas adds : "Thus my 
father was of the same mind as myself, and would 
not listen to them, because of thy father." 

In another letter, written by Burna-buryas to 
Amenhotep IV, it appears that they had agreed to 
have amicable dealings with one another, as their 
fathers had done; but Burna-buryas complains that 
his ministers, who had been sent to Egypt with costly 



History of Ancient Egypt 409 

presents, had been slain and robbed in the country 
of Kinachi (Canaan), which was subject to Egypt, 
and demands that the murderers, whom he names, 
be summarily punished. ''Slay them, and requite the 
blood of my messengers. If thou dost not put these 
men to death, the people of my country will slay thy 
ambassadors, and the league between us will be 
broken, and I will be estranged from thee." 

A custom sprang up during the reign of Thothmes 
III which had an injurious effect upon the govern- 
ment and religion of Egypt. 

The kings of Egypt gave their daughters in mar- 
riage to the kings of Babylonia, Assyria, and Mitanni, 
and, in turn, married daughters of these foreign 
kings. The kingdom of Mitanni, the Maten of the 
monuments, was situated on the east bank of the 
Euphrates in Naharuna, or Mesopotamia, and seems 
to have been separated from the country of the Amor- 
ites by the kingdom of Nuchasse, which was subject 
to Egypt. The letters from Dushratta, king of Mit- 
anni, to Amenhotep III, Teie (Ta-i), his wife, and 
Amenhotep IV, their eldest son, throw a flood of 
light upon the history of this period. A letter to 
Amenhotep IV ("Napchururiya" equals Nofer- 
cheperu-ra), informs us that Thothmes IV, the father 
of Amenhotep III, sent to Artatama, the grandfather 
of Dushratta, asking the hand of his daughter in 
marriage. Dushratta claims that Thothmes IV sent 
five times, yea, six times, before Artatama would con- 
sent to give her up. At last, however, Artatama 
yielded, and sent his daughter to Egypt, to become 



41 o A Self- Verifying Chronological 

the wife of the Egyptian king, accompanied by a 
train of handmaidens. 

Some time after this, Amenhotep III (Nipmuaria, 
Nimutriya, Nimmuria, and Nimmuaria=A/'^&-Ma-ra) 
sent an embassy to Satarna to ask for his daughter, 
Dushratta's "darHng sister/' 

"At last, five times and six times he sends, and 
my father gave her with a train of handmaidens." 

"When Nimmuria, thy father, sent to me, and 
asked for my daughter, I did not refuse, but answered 
favorably. I spoke to his messenger as follows: 'I 
am ready to give her; thy messenger has come among 
my children, and I have seen the present which thou 
hast sent . . . and I will bestow upon her the 
dowry due to thee . . . and because I am hon- 
ored, I do not refuse to give her.' " 

A scarab of the time of Amenhotep III contains 
an inscription showing that, in the tenth year of this 
Pharaoh, Satarna, king of Naharuna, sent his daughter 
Kirugipa (Giluchipa) to Egypt with a train of three 
hundred and seventeen handmaidens. 

The daughter of Dushratta mentioned in the 
above letter, although sent for by Amenhotep III, 
was bestowed upon Amenhotep IV, who then be- 
came joint-regent. This was, according to Manetho, 
about four years before the death of Amenhotep III, 
or after he had reigned thirty-one years and ten 
months. 

The young queen bore the name of Taduchipa, 
which is equivalent to the Egyptian Tai-ti, for "chipa" 
does not seem to be an essential part of the name. 



History of Ancient Egypt 41 1 

The "chief wife" of Amenhotep III, however, was 
Tai, the daughter of Juia and Tula, king and queen of 
'Naharima. 

Dushratta, king of Mitanni, addresses Amenho- 
tep IV as his "son-in-law," and sends greetings to 
Teie, "my sister and thy mother," and to Taduchipa, 
"my daughter and thy wife," so that the relationship 
existing between the four can no longer admit of a 
doubt, unless Dushratta addressed the widowed queen 
Tai as "sister" in the same way that he addressed 
Amenhotep III and Amenhotep IV as "brother," 
which is not at all likely. But it seems certain that 
Mitanni and Naharuna were convertable names, for 
the scarab mentioned shows that Sutarna, "king of 
Naharuna,'' sent his daughter Kiluchipa to Egypt, 
while Dushratta, "king of Mitanni," recognized 
Kiluchipa as his sister and Satarna as his father. The 
use of both names can be easily explained. Naharuna 
(Na-aru-na, Na-iaru-na) was the Egyptian name for 
the region inclosed by the rivers, and has come down 
to us, through the classics, in the Greek form Meso- 
potamia. Mitanni, or Maten, however, was the name 
of the country itself. Dushratta addresses Amen- 
hotep IV as his "son-in-law," stating that their fathers 
had been in the closest aUiance, that Amenhotep III 
had perfected the alliance, and had been in exceed- 
ing close alliance with Dushratta's father. "Now thou 
hast established it ten times more than in my father's 
time." 

The meaning of this can not be mistaken. The 
"fathers" of both kings, referred to generally, were 



412 A Self-Verifying Chronological 

Amenhotep II and Thothmes IV on the one hand, 
and Artatama and Sutarna on the other hand. We 
must not forget that Thothmes I, in the beginning 
of his reign, or about 1785 B. C, conquered Syria, 
invaded Naharuna, and commemorated his victories 
by a tablet set up on the eastern bank of the Eu- 
phrates; and that Thothmes III, in the thirty-third 
year of his reign, or about 1721 B. C, again pene- 
trated to the same region, and set up a second tablet 
by the side of that set up by his grandfather. In 
his annals, Thothmes III informs us that, after the 
capture of Megiddo, in his twenty-third year, he "ap- 
pointed chiefs anew" to rule over the land. In fact, 
the correspondence discovered at Tel-el-Amarna 
shows that he did this, as a rule, throughout Canaan 
and Syria. Thus, in his thirtieth year, Thothmes III 
tells us that he was in the land of the Rutennu, and 
spoiled Kadesh, and further, that the sons of the 
princes and their brothers were taken to Egypt as 
hostages, and that, if any of the chiefs died, his 
majesty would appoint his son in his place. The 
numerous petty chiefs, throughout the conquered 
region, were appointed by the king of Egypt from 
among these hostages, after they had been trained 
and educated in Egypt. We can now understand 
how the alliance between Egypt and Mitanni, which 
had been firmly cemented by the marriage of Arta- 
tama's daughter to Thothmes IV, was "perfected" 
by Amenhotep III. We know that Kiluchipa, the 
wife of Amenhotep III, was Dushratta's sister; but 
the relationship of Tai, or Teie, to the king of Mi- 



History of Ancient Egypt 413 

tanni is not so easily explained, because she is called, 
upon an Egyptian inscription, the daughter of Juia, 
king of Naharuna^ and Tvda, his wife. Dushratta ob- 
tained the crown after a struggle with Artash- 
shumara, his brother. 

It seems that the latter induced the Hittites to 
espouse his cause, and brought them into the land 
of Mitanni; but they were defeated by Dushratta, who 
tells us that he slew Artash-shumara. Was Tuia the 
wife of Sutarna after the death of Juiaf 

When we consider that the royal houses of Egypt 
and Mitanni were united by marriage for nearly fifty 
years before the accession of Amenhotep IV, and that 
prior to and during this period, a large number of 
Asiatics were brought to Egypt and permanently 
domiciled there, we need not be surprised to find 
Asiatic ideas taking root at the court of Pharaoh, and 
the Government intrusted to Mesopotamians from the 
land of Mitanni. 

An Egyptian vizier informs us that, under Amen- 
hotep III, he filled the gaps in the ranks of the native 
citizens from among the best of the prisoners brought 
to Egypt from these regions. 

The reign of Ach-en-aten marks the culmination 
of Mesopotamian influence in Egypt. The rightful 
name of this king was Amenhotep, but as his mother 
Tai, or Teie, was a foreigner, he was not eligible to 
the throne under the ancient laws of succession in 
Egypt. His father, however, who was the celebrated 
Memnon of the Greeks, openly defied the law by 
placing him on the throne, as co-regent, after he had 



414 ^ Self-Verifying Chronological 

reigned thirty-one years and ten months. No one, 
it seems, dared to raise his voice against this inno- 
vation during the Hfetime of the aged monarch, but, 
after his death, which occurred about four years later, 
loud and determined opposition grew up in Thebes, 
the beautiful capital of the South. The new king, 
with the impetuosity characteristic of youth and in- 
experience, endeavored to beat down all opposition 
by publically humiliating the proud and powerful 
priesthood of Thebes. He had retained the time- 
honored name of Amenhotep, and outwardly ob- 
served the worship of Amen (the tutelar deity of 
Thebes) during the lifetime of his father, but now, 
swayed by feelings of resentment and giving way to 
the influence of his Mesopotamian mother and wife, he 
boldly renounced the worship of Amen, and removed 
the capital to Tel-el-Amarna, which is about midway 
between Thebes and Memphis. He also changed his 
name to Aten-ach-en-ra, that is, "Aten, the splendor 
of Ra," and adopted the strange worship of Aten, 
or the "sun's disk," as Egyptologists have rendered 
it. We can not stop to inquire into the exact mean- 
ing of "Aten," which has been compared to the Syrian 
"Adon," or Lord, but will merely suggest to the 
reader that the sun of the Sothiac year, whose vice- 
gerent Pharaoh claimed to be, had set beneath the 
western horizon, and was so situated that the "splen- 
dor" of his disk could be seen with the naked eye. 
There are representations of this king holding aloft 
the three cartouches of "Horus on the horizon," to 
wit, "Har-em-achu-ti, hai-em-ach-et, em ran-ef em Shu, 



Hi ST OR Y OF Ancient Eg ypt 4 1 5 

enti em Aten," showing that he venerated Harmachis, 
or ''Horus on the horizon," "in his name of SJm, 
which is the same as AtenJ' Thus Aten seems to 
represent the sun's force, as manifested in the effects 
of Hght, heat, etc. What the monuments have to say 
about Aten can be harmonized with Shii. We quote 
the following from Brugsch and Petrie : 

"A royal offering to the living Aten, who enlightens the 
world by his benefactions," etc. 

" Harmachu, by his name of Shu, who is Aten in Thebes," etc. 

" Thy appearing in the horizon of heaven is beautiful, 
The living Aten, the beginning of life ; 
Thou risest in the horizon of the east, 
Thou fillest every land with thy beauty, 
How many are the things which thou hast made ! 
Thou Greatest the land by thy will ; thou alone, 
"With peoples, herds, and flocks, 

Everything on the face of the earth that walketh on its feet. 
Everything in the air that flieth with its wings," etc. 

As beautiful and plausible as the above may seem 
at first blush, it ascribes to Shu, or Aten, what prop- 
erly belongs to God, and, for this reason, the new 
doctrine was regarded by the learned priesthood of 
Thebes, and the "initiated" generally, as rank heresy, 
and was promptly repudiated as such. 

It is at this time, and under these peculiar and 
abnormal circumstances, that the Tel-el-Armana clay- 
tablets reveal to us the presence at the Egyptian court 
of a Mesopotamian "Adon," bearing the name of 
Dudu or Tutu. The authority of this official, in the 
sight of men, was equal to that of Pharaoh himself, 
and we find that he is addressed by the same titles 



41 6 A Self-Verifying Chronological 

of honor, except those which apply to the person of 
the king exclusively. 

Thus Aziru, then governor of the land of Amurri 
(Amorrites), writing from Syria, addresses him thus : 
"To Dudu, my lord, my father; at the feet of my 
lord I prostrate myself." Dissensions at home had 
weakened the authority of the Egyptian Government 
in the provinces. The Hittites, who had been sub- 
missive under Thothmes III, had advanced from their 
Cappadocian fastnesses, and appeared before the city 
of Tunep (Tennib), northwest of Aleppo. Aziru 
writes : "The king of the land of the Hittites, O my 
lord, has marched into the country of Nuchassi, but 
has not prevailed over the cities. Now Chatib and I 
have marched in order to force him to withdraw. 
May the king, my lord, listen to my words. I am 
loyal, O my lord, to the king, my lord, and to Dudu^ 
He also writes: "From the commands of my lord, 
etc., and from the commands of Dudu, my lord, I 
GO not free myself." 

Aziru recognizes the authority of Dudu as equal 
to that of the king, and, in this respect, the adon 
Dudu resembles the adon Joseph. Pharaoh says to 
Joseph: "On the throne only will I be above thee." 
The sculptures and representations in the tombs of 
Tel-el-Amarna show the king attended by a grand 
vizier and escort, all of a foreign race. We now find 
that this high official bore the name of Dudu. The 
grand tomb of Tutu, at Tel-el-Amarna, with hall of 
twelve columns, scenes of King Achenaten, his queen, 
and three daughters, and long texts, had been visited 



History of Ancient Egypt 417 

by Lepsius and described in the "Denkmaler," yet 
no one supposed that he had filled the important 
office of ''adon over the whole land." 

In Turin there is a group of sitting statues, in 
black granite, representing Har-em-heh and his queen. 
On the back of these is an inscription describing his 
career as an adon^ which has been accurately trans- 
lated by Brugsch. While yet a youth, he was pre- 
sented to Pharaoh, and enraptured the heart of the 
king, who made him a Ro-hir, or Guardian, of the 
country. His administered this office to the entire 
satisfaction of the king and people of Egypt. He 
was next called to the court, where he advised the 
king with such wisdom and justice, that he was com- 
pared with Thoth and Ptah. ''In all his deeds and 
ways he followed in their path, and they were his 
shield and protection on earth to all eternity." 

In the course of tim.e he was again promoted and 
raised to the office of adon, which position he held 
during a period of many years. The distinguished 
men at the court bowed themselves before him out- 
side the door of the palace. "And when the kings 
of the nine foreign nations of the South and of the 
North appeared before him, they stretched out their 
hands at his approach, and praised his soul as if he 
had been God." Nothing was done except by his or- 
der. "Thus his authority was greater than that of 
the king in the sight of mortals, and all wished him 
prosperity and health." He punished the guilty and 
rewarded the deserving. 

After this he was raised to the dignity of crown 
27 



41 8 A Self-Verifying Chronological 

prince, and finally became king. One might be 
tempted to believe that the writer of the beautiful 
story of Joseph had copied from the above inscrip- 
tion; but history repeated itself with remarkable reg- 
ularity in ancient Egypt, and we can safely assume 
that the authority of Dudu as Adon was similar, in 
all respects, to that of Har-em-hib, for both were con- 
temporaries. 

It is probable that Har-em-heb was a son of Amen- 
hotep III, succeeded Dudu, and was raised to the 
dignity of crown prince shortly before he became 
king. 

There are many points of resemblance between 
Dudu and Joseph. Dudu was known as an adept 
in the science of divining. In Volume II, Records 
of the Past, page 67, there is a report addressed to 
the king of Egypt, in which Dudu's elevation to 
power is sarcastically ascribed to his skill in divining. 
The translation reads: "O father, thy father is not 
Aziru; he has not girdled the world with his gov- 
ernors and his prophesying." 

Aziru was the governor of the land of Amurri, 
but it was Dudu who had appointed him, and who 
had "girdled the world with his governors and proph- 
esying." Now Joseph says to his brethren: "Know 
ye not that there is no one like me in the science of 
divining?" It appears from Genesis, chapter 41, verses 
41 to 43, that Pharaoh made Joseph ruler over all 
the land of Egypt; took ofT his ring from his own 
hand, and put it upon Joseph's hand; arrayed him in 



Hi ST OR Y OF Ancient Eg ypt 419 

the vestures of fine linen, and put a gold chain about 
his neck, and made him ride in his second chariot; 
and that they cried before him, "Bow the knee." 

In his latest work, entitled "The Egypt of the 
Hebrews and Herodotus," the eminent Assyriologist, 
Rev. A. H. Sayce, says: 

"It is now more easy to explain the cry which was 
raised before Joseph when he went forth from the 
presence of Pharaoh with the golden chain around his 
neck and the royal signet upon his finger. 'Abrek!' 
they shouted before him, and an explanation of the 
word has been vainly sought in the Egyptian lan- 
guage. It really is of Babylonian origin. In the 
primitive non-Semitic language of Chaldea abrik sig- 
nified a 'seer' or 'soothsayer,' and the term was 
borrowed by the Semitic Babylonians under the two 
forms of abrikku and abarakkii. Joseph was thus pro- 
claimed a seer, and his exaltation was due to his 
power of foreseeing the future. It was as a divinely- 
inspired seer that the subjects of the Pharaoh were 
to reverence him. How a Babylonian word like 
ahrek came to be used in Egypt it is idle for us to in- 
quire," etc. 

Thus "bow the knee" is not the correct trans- 
lation of the Cushite word abrek, and is no better than 
the translation of the Egyptian word ab, "councillor," 
which now appears as "father." 

We have just seen that Dudu's accession to power 
was attributed to his mastery of the science of di- 
vining, and this was the reason the crier, who went 
in front of his chariot, shouted "abrek,'' that is (as 
we should say), "make way for the seer!" 



420 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

The use of the Cushite word "ahrek'' is just what 
we might expect under the circumstances. During 
the five hundred and eleven years of Hamite dom- 
ination over Egypt, the Egyptians had abundant op- 
portunity to become acquainted with the language 
and peculiar system of writing of the invaders. This 
so-called "primitive non-Semitic language" became 
the literary language of Western Asia, and bore about 
the same relation to later Semitic languages that 
Latin does to modern English. 

We have seen how the purely Hamitic title Neb- 
roth, "Pursuer," came to be applied to Aahmes^ under 
the form of "Chnebros." 

Such variations as Niprut, Nebroth, and Nimrod 
are analogous to Neb-muat-ra "Nim-mut-ria," and 
"Nim-mu-ria." 

Speaking from the contemporary monuments, the 
last eighty years of Joseph's life coincide with the 
period of Asiatic predominance at the Egyptian court, 
which came to an end at the accession of Horus, or 
Har-em-heb ; therefore, the adon Har-em-heb could not 
have been the adon Joseph. The only adon who an- 
swers to the Biblical Joseph is Dudu, or Tutu. If 
the story of Joseph is to be taken literally, we must 
place his accession about fifteen years before the death 
of Thothmes III; and the seven years of scarcity, or 
deficient overflow of the Nile, would end about the 
same time, to wit, 1700 B. C; but if, like the story of 
the Flood, it is allegorical, the career of the Meso- 
potamian Dudu would answer every purpose. I re- 
gard the story as an allegory, because the name 



History of Ancient Egypt 421 

Joseph is a tribe-name, and the monuments of the 
time of Thothmes III and Amenhotep II bear no 
evidence of an adon corresponding to Joseph, or bear- 
ing any name or title resembHng his. I do not mean 
to assert that such evidence may not be discovered 
at some future time, but merely that it has not been 
up to this date. 

We have seen from the inscription of the ship- 
captain Aahmes, son of Baba, that AahmeSy the king, 
in the sixth year of his reign, besieged the fortress 
of Sheruhen, in southern Palestine, near Gaza, and 
took it. This placed in the hands of the Egyptian 
army the key to the great military and commercial 
road leading northwardly along the seacoast to Syria. 
The same warrior tells us that after Thothmes I had 
quelled the rebellion in Nubia, he betook himself to 
the land of the Rutennu (Syria) to slake his anger 
among the inhabitants of the land; that His Majesty 
reached the land of Nahanma, and found the enemies 
who had plotted conspiracy; that His Majesty en- 
gaged them in battle, made a great slaughter of them, 
and carried away an immense number of living cap- 
tives after his victory. Aahmes tells us that he was 
at the head of the warriors, and that Thothmes I ad- 
mired his valor, etc. 

Aahmes, surnamed Pen-nucheh, a contemporary of 
the ship-captain Aahmes, tells us that he served the 
king Thothmes I, accompanied him on the campaign 
to Nubia, and took for him, in the land of Naharuna, 
twenty-one hands, a horse, and a war-chariot. 

Neither one of these warriors mentions any battles. 



422 A Self- Verifying Chronological 



or siege, along the entire route, many hundreds of 
miles in length, from Egypt to Aram-Naharain, which 
indicates that Canaan and Syria, along the great high- 
way mentioned, were already in the possession of the 
Egyptians. We learn from an impartial and unbiased 
source that, as early as the beginning of the reign of 
Thothmes I, or about 1784 B. C, immense numbers 
of Mesopotamians, from the region then inhabited 
by Israel and his sons, were carried away to Egypt 
as living captives. Many inhabitants of this region 
were carried away to Egypt during the long reign 
of Thothmes III, and were forced to labor upon pub- 
lic works. Thus there was abundant material in 
Egypt from which the coming nation of Israel could 
recruit its numbers, and we need not wonder that it 
multiplied so rapidly. Het-shepsut, or Mephres, the 
mother of Thothmes III, regarded the foreigners 
favorably, as she herself assures us, and by the end 
of the reign of Amenhotep III they were freely ad- 
mitted into Egypt, and even naturalized as citizens. 
The Mitannian escort, which entered Egypt with 
Taduchipa, was placed among the houses which 
Amenhotep III gave to her. The Mitannian am- 
bassador Gillya, who accompanied her, was honored 
by the Egyptian king, and placed in the front rank. 
Gold by the thousand-weight was showered on Tadu- 
chipa, and she gave Gillya whatever he desired. Amen- 
hotep did this on account of his friendship for Dush- 
ratta and love for Teie. After the death of the Egyp- 
tian king, Teie, on behalf of her son Amenhotep IV, 



History of Ancient Egypt 423 

offered Dushratta an alliance and brotherhood. The 
latter writes : 

"Now they say that Nimmuriya (Amenhotep III) 
has died, and what they have said has distracted my 
heart. I wept on that day, and on my throne I did 
not sit. Bread and water on that day I did not take, 
and I was sad. 

"Now the eldest son of Nimmuriya by Teie, his 
wife, has offered me alliance and brotherhood, speak- 
ing thus: 'Nimmuriya is not dead, since Amenophis 
IV, his eldest son by Teie, his chief wife, sits in his 
place, for he will never alter his words, but they shall 
remain as before.' " 

In another letter to Amenophis IV, after greeting 
Teie, his mother, and Taduchipa, his wife, Dushratta 
writes : 

"And as regards the frequent intercourse which I 
had with thy father, Teie, thy mother, knows the 
facts; but after Teie, thy mother, thou knowest them, 
and what he said to thee. As thy father was friendly 
with me, so art thou, O my brother, again friendly 
with me, and what is contrary thereto no one 
listens to." 

It is evident that a perfect understanding existed 
between Amenhotep III and the Mitannian king, and 
that Teie alone was taken into their confidence. 
Amenhotep IV was also initiated into the strange 
league, and Teie had formed such a correct estimate 
of his character, disposition, and aims, that she did 
not hesitate to give Dushratta the most positive as- 
surances as to his future conduct as king. The ex- 



424 A Self-Verifying Chronological 

cellent portraits of Teie which have come down to 
us show that she was a woman of rare intellectuality 
and beauty; her complexion, unlike that of the native 
Egyptian women, was light and somewhat rosy, her 
forehead high, and full in the regions of individuality, 
causality, and comparison, and her features delicate, 
refined, and remarkably attractive. For over forty 
years, during the reigns of Amenhotep III and Amen- 
hotep IV, her influence was potent in molding the 
Egyptian Government according to her own pecu- 
liar political and religious notions. Is it a wonder 
then that, under the sole reign of Amenhotep IV, 
or "Achenres," we find, besides Tata and Tatti^ a 
Mesopotamian adon, court, and body-guard, and the 
Mesopotamian worship of Atenf In many respects 
Teie reminds us of the Mesopotamian Rachel, who 
stole her father's idols, and carried them off to Ca- 
naan. 

"Achenres" constructed a remarkable temple, of 
beautiful and unique workmanship, at Tel-el-Amarna, 
which he dedicated to Aten; and in his sixth year 
that is, second year of his sole reign, his mother, 
Queen Teie, appeared as the central figure in the 
ceremonies and festivities of the occasion. 

The children of Israel had been dwelling in Egypt 
about fifty-three years at this time, and, although 
the Mesopotamian adon Dudu is not specially men- 
tioned in the representations of this important event, 
it is almost certain that this high official, who was 
more powerful in the sight of mortals than Pharaoh 
himself, was present. The fact that Joseph's death 



History of Ancient Egypt 425 

is fixed at about 1634 B. C, does not conflict with the 
fact that Dudu's tomb is just back of Tel-el-Amarna, 
for it was constructed in the hfetime of the adon, and 
during the reign of Ach-en-aten. 

"THE PHARAOH OF THE OPPRESSION" 

We have just seen that the one hundred and ten 
years assigned to Joseph in Bible chronology, and 
the eighty years of Mesopotamian influence at the 
Egyptian court, came to an end at the accession of 
Har-em-hebf or Horus, as king, to wit, about 
1634 B. C. 

The book of Exodus introduces us to a new 
period. ''And Joseph died, and all his brethren, and 
air that generation." The original Mesopotamian 
settlers had passed away, and their descendants, born 
and reared in Egypt, began to fill the land of Goshen. 
"And the children of Israel were fruitful, and increased 
abundantly, and multiplied, and waxed exceeding 
mighty; and the land [Goshen] was filled with them. 
Now there arose up a new king over Egypt, which 
knew not Joseph." This "new king" was apprehensive 
that, in case war should break out, the Israelites 
might join his enemies, and fight against the Egyp- 
tians, "and so get them up out of the land;" and 
therefore set over them taskmasters to afflict them 
with their burdens; and they built for Pharaoh temple- 
cities, Pithom and Raamses. This name Ramesses 
which certainly could not have been given before 
the accession of Ramesses I, is of controlling impor- 
tance in determining the name and date of the 



426 A Seli^- Verifying Chronological 

''new king" referred to. We have already seen that, 
owing to the long ''joint-reign" of father and son, 
it is, and always was, very difficult to separate the 
reigns of Ramesses I, Seti I, and Ramesses II, which, 
together, cover the phenomenal period of one hun- 
dred and twenty-seven years. 

Although Ramesses I was, strictly speaking, the 
"new king," who knew not Joseph, that is, the Meso- 
potamian influence at the Egyptian court (for Horus 
had abolished it), he reigned but one year and four 
months before his infant son, Seti I, was crowned as 
joint-king. There are many facts going to show 
that Ramesses I, contrary to the general opinion, 
enjoyed a comparatively long reign, but it was com- 
pletely eclipsed and obscured by the remarkable gen- 
ius and glorious achievements of his son, co-regent 
and successor, the legendary Sesostris. Again, the 
long reign of Ramesses II was preceded by his joint- 
reign with his father, Seti L Thus it is evident that 
the three reigns overlapped in a confusing and per- 
plexing manner, and we must not forget that the 
"Oppression," which commenced under the joint- 
reign of Ramesses I and Seti I, continued many, 
many years. According to the Bible narrative, which 
is brief and fragmentary, "the more they afflicted 
them, the more they multiplied and grew." It neces- 
sarily required years of affliction to make this expe- 
rience, and it was not until after this that Pharaoh 
charged the people to cast every male child that was 
born into the river. 

Happily we are in a position to fix the Bible date 



History of Ancient Egypt 427 

of this inhuman edict. It was in force when Moses 
was born, eighty years before the Exodus, that is, 
about 1 571 B. C, but did not affect Aaron, who was 
born three years before that date. Thus Seti I was the 
Pharaoh who devised this cruel means of preventing 
the Hebrews from multiplying, after they had been 
systematically afflicted for nearly fifty years. About 
this time Seti caused his son Ramesses II, then a child 
about twelve years old, to be publicly crowned as 
joint-regent. Ramesses, therefore, was about twelve 
years older than Moses, and the ''daughter of Pha- 
raoh" who adopted the Hebrew waif as her son was 
a sister to Ramesses. The king who first commanded 
the Hebrew midwives to kill all the male children, 
and afterwards charged the people to drown every 
male child born to the Hebrew women, must have 
been possessed of a cruel and arbitrary disposition. 
Now, what do the monuments teach us as to the char- 
acter of Seti? 

The inscriptions at Karnak tell us, concerning this, 
that "his joy is to undertake the battle, and his de- 
light is to dash into it. His heart is only satisfied 
at the sight of the streams of blood when he strikes 
off the heads of his enemies. A moment of the strug- 
gle of men is dearer to him than a day of pleasure. 
He slays them with one stroke, and spares none 
among them. And whoever of them is left remain- 
ing finds himself in his grasp, and is carried off to 
Egypt alive as a prisoner." This contemporary pen- 
picture of the great Sesostris, in the first year of his 
sole-reign, accords well with the character of the 



42S A Self-Verifying Chronological 

king who attempted to check the rapid increase of 
the Israelites in Goshen by killing off the male chil- 
dren at birth. Such cruelty is unusual in an Egyp- 
tian Pharaoh; but Ramesses I seems to have been 
devoted to Set^ or Sutech, the divinity of the serpent- 
worshiping Hyksos, and his son Seti, who was named 
in honor of Set, openly emulated the fierce and cruel 
virtues of the foreign deity, the Apap or Set-an of the 
Egyptians. The first campaign undertaken by Seti, 
in the first year of his sole reign, happened to be 
against the hostile Shasu, or Beduin, of southern 
Canaan. The Hebrews claimed to be related to these 
Shasii through their forefather Abram, and the 
cruelty and severity of Seti's measures may have been 
owing to this fact. It seems that Syria and a part 
of Canaan were lost to Egypt during the weak reign 
of Achenaten's daughter, for the Cheta, or Hittites, 
who were seated north of Aleppo, in the Cappado- 
cian fastnesses, at the beginning of Achenaten's reign 
were firmly established in the city of Kadesh on the 
Orontes when Seti began to reign. A formidable 
enemy to the Egyptian Government had suddenly 
arisen in the great people of Cheta. This critical state 
of affairs in the provinces induced the king of Egypt 
to make the city of Tanis (Zoan) his principal place 
of residence. This city commanded the approach to 
the great military road leading along the coast of the 
Mediterranean Sea to Canaan and Syria, and was the 
natural base of operations for campaigns against these 
countries. 

Brugsch-Bey, the best authority on all matters 



History of Ancient Egypt 429 

relating to the geography of ancient Egypt, iden- 
tifies the temple-city of Ramesses with Tanis; that is, 
he identifies the new and beautiful city of Ramesses, 
where Ramesses II delighted to hold his court, with 
the sacred quarter of Tanis. 

Now the temple-cities of Pithom (Patumos, Per- 
turn) and Raamses (Ramesses), which the unfor- 
tunate Hebrews were forced to build for Pharaoh, 
were certainly in, or near, the land of Goshen. 

We have no right to assume that there were two 
important cities named Ramesses in the same dis- 
trict at this time, unless we are forced to do so by 
direct and incontrovertible evidence. A critical ex- 
amination of the Bible narrative with reference to 
the location of Ramesses, will render it reasonably 
certain that it was the celebrated temple-city, or 
sacred quarter, of Tanis, in the plain of Zoan, which 
was named after Ramesses I. At the time of the 
Exodus, Menophthah, the Pharaoh of the Exodus, 
was in this city of Ramesses, and the Hebrews, who 
had been gathered together by their elders, under 
the direction of Aaron and Moses, were encamped 
under its walls. The Bible narrative admits of no 
other construction. We are told that ''only in the 
land of Goshen where the children of Israel were, there 
was no hail." (Exodus ix, 26.) 

Moses would leave his people, go into the city 
where Pharaoh was, stand before him, and demand 
their release, and then come out of the city from 
Pharaoh. "And Moses said unto him [Pharaoh] : 
As soon as I am gone out of the city, I will spread 



430 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

abroad my hands unto the Lord," etc. "And Moses 
went out of the city from Pharaoh, and spread abroad 
his hands," etc. (Exodus ix, 29, 2iZ^ 

When the first-born were smitten at midnight, 
we are told that Pharaoh rose up in the night, and 
he called for Moses and Aaron by night, showing that 
they were near at hand, and that the scene of the ter- 
rible tragedy was in and before the city of Ramesses, 
where Menophthah then held his court. 

The journey of the Israelites began at this city. 
"And the children of Israel journeyed from Ramesses 
to Succoth." (Exodus xii, 2i7^ 

The first day's journey, therefore, was from Ra- 
messes, that is, the sacred, or temple, quarter of Tanis, 
to Succoth, which was but another name for Pithom. 
Ramesses and Pithom were the sacred, or temple, 
names of Zoan and Succoth. 

Now turn to Brugsch's translation of the inscrip- 
tion relating to the treaty between Ramesses II and 
Cheta-sar, dated in the year 21, on the 21st day of 
Tybi. We read : "On that day the king was in the 
city of Ramesses, presenting his peace-ofiferings to 
his father Amen-ra/' etc. Among the so-called gods 
mentioned who had temples, or tabernacles, in this 
city, were Har-em-achii Turn, lord of Heliopolis, Amen, 
Ptah, and Sutech, or Set. 

The "river" mentioned in Exodus i, 22, was the 
Pelusiac arm of the Nile, which then flowed through 
and watered the land of Goshen. The city of 
Ramesses, named after Ramesses I, who, no doubt, 



History of Ancient Egypt 43 1 

made it his residence, was situated on this so-called 
"river." 

The child Moses was placed in the flags, or bul- 
rushes, by this river's brink. The daughter of 
Pharaoh came down to wash herself at this river, 
and, walking along the river's side with her maidens, 
saw the ark among the flags. 

As Moses was grown when he slew the Egyptian 
(Exodus ii, 11), we must place this event in the sole 
reign of Ramesses II. Now Moses fled from the 
face of Pharaoh, and dwelt in the land of Midian, un- 
til, 'iin the process of time," it came to pass that the 
king of Egypt died. Thus Moses was absent from 
Egypt for at least fifty years, which accounts for the 
fact that all the men were dead which sought his life. 
(Exodus iv, 19.) 

Ramesses II, as joint-king with Seti, and after- 
wards during the sixty-six years of his sole reign, 
continued to afliict the Israelites with heavy burdens, 
for ''all their service, wherein they made them serve, 
was with rigor." We are told that they sighed by 
reason of their bondage. Taskmasters and officers 
were placed over them, who hastened them, saying, 
"Fulfill your works, your daily tasks." Thus it ap- 
pears that the Israelites who were invited to settle 
in Egypt were,, in the course of time, treated like 
prisoners of war. There is a pictorial representation 
on the walls of a tomb at Abd-el-Qurnah, of the time 
of Thothmes III, showing the severe labor to which 
the captive countrymen of Israel and his sons werq 



y 



432 A Self-Verifying Chronological 

subjected. Some of them fetch water from the pond 
hard by; others knead the earth; others mold the 
bricks, and place them in rows to dry; and others 
again are employed upon the building. The inscrip- 
tion tells us they are captives carried away by Thoth- 
mes III ; "they work at the building with dexterous 
fingers; their overseers show themselves in sight; 
these attend in strictness, obeying the words of the 
great, skillful lord, who gives directions to the mas- 
ters. They are rewarded with wine and all kinds of 
good dishes; they perform their service with a mind 
full of love for the king. The overseer speaks ihus 
to the laborers at the building: 'The stick is in my 
hand, be not idle.' " 

Of course, these were not the same Hebrews men- 
tioned in Holy Scriptures, but the representation and 
inscription relating to similar work at Thebes may 
serve to illustrate the hard fate of the Israelites, who 
were forced to work on the storehouses and temples 
erected by Ramesses I, Seti I, and Ramesses II in the 
new and beautiful capital of the Delta, the famous city 
of Ramesses. The parallel is perfect even down to the 
palatable and nourishing food furnished to the work- 
men. No doubt the Hebrews were likewise rewarded 
for their excellent service with wine and all kinds of 
good dishes; for when they were restricted to the 
meager diet of the desert they often wished them- 
selves back to the tempting flesh-pots of Egypt. 

In the so-called "Letter of Panbesa" we have an 
excellent description of the city of Ramesses, written 
by an eye-witness. He tells us that nothing on 



History of Ancient Egypt 433 

Theban soil could compare with it. Its canals were 
rich in fish, its lakes swarmed with birds, its meadows 
were green with vegetables; there was no end of len- 
tils, and melons with a taste like honey grew in the irri- 
gated fields. Its barns were full of wheat and durra, 
and reached as high as heaven. 

The apple-tree, almond-tree, fig-tree, and vine 
grew in the gardens. All kinds of fish abounded. 
Ships sailed up from the sea and entered the harbor, 
bringing all kinds of foreign delicacies and luxuries. 
Plenty and abundance prevailed in the city. It was 
pleasant to live in. He who settled there rejoiced. 
The youths were perpetually clad in festive attire. 
The hero who was then celebrated in this wonderful 
city was Ramesses II, the son of Seti. It was the 
royal residence (chinmi). We accordingly find 
Ramesses in his first year — that is, shortly after the 
death of Seti — ''on his first journey to Thebes." 
When he returned from the capital of the "land of 
the south," the order was given for the journey down 
the stream to the city of Ramesses. 

Thus the "oppression" continued with ever-in- 
creasing vigor for nearly one hundred and thirty 
years, and affected four successive generations of the 
Hebrews. In some respects it proved beneficial to 
them, for it transformed tribes of migratory Shasu, 
depending altogether upon their herds and flocks for 
subsistence, into a nation of "settled people," accus- 
tomed to manual work and prepared to till the 
soil and earn a living in their prospective home 
in Canaan. 
28 



434 ^-^ Self- Verifying Chronological 



THE PHARAOH OF THE EXODUS 

The epoch-reign of Seti I, to wit, "Osiropis," or 
Hus-ir-api, with twenty-three years, which has been 
fully examined in other chapters of this work, fixes 
the death of Sesostris (Sethos, Sethosis) at 1621 
B. C. This date, therefore, can be accepted as abso- 
lute. Although Seti I caused his son Ramesses to 
be exhibited to the people as crown prince and joint- 
regent when he was but a youth, he did not permit 
him to exercise the authority of Pharaoh, or to date 
monuments in his own name during his lifetime. 
Ramesses tells us in one place that he was raised to 
be a Ro-hir of the land when he counted ten full years, 
and in another place that he was a little boy before 
he attained to the government, and that his father 
showed him publicly to the people when he was a 
boy and caused him to be crowned as king, so that he 
might behold his excellence while he was yet alive. 
While this may be true, it is certain, from the inscrip- 
tions themselves, that the first year of the reign of 
Ramesses II dates from the death of his father, and 
not from the beginning of the joint-reign. 

It has become the fashion to regard Ramesses 11 
as the "Pharaoh of the Oppression" — that is, as the 
king who issued the edict to drown the Hebrew chil- 
dren in the river — and, gauging his character accord- 
ing to such deeds, to portray him as a cruel and in- 
human monster. But the contemporary monuments, 
which are plentiful, show conclusively that this a 
priori assumption is false and unfounded. At the 



History of Ancient Egypt 435 



beginning of his reign he was actuated by feelings of 
intense filial piety. He next appears as a brave and 
chivalrous leader upon the field of battle. As a builder 
in completing the marvelously beautiful monuments 
designed and begun by his father, and in erecting 
others equally grand and unique all over Egypt, from 
Tanis to the southern boundary of Nubia, his activity 
stands unrivaled. It is true the monuments and in- 
scriptions bear witness to his overweening pride and 
vanity, but they nowhere reveal any trait of cruelty or 
inhumanity such as that just described in Seti's char- 
acter. In fact, the Bible narrative fails to mention 
any special act of cruelty during the long reign of 
Ramesses XL When he became king, the policy of 
Seti I, respecting the treatment and management of 
the Hebrews, had ripened into a settled custom. 
Ramesses simply continued this settled poHcy, and 
compelled the Hebrews to work upon the temples and 
buildings erected by him in the district of Goshen, 
and particularly in the temple quarter of Tanis, 
known as the city of Ramesses, his new and splendid 
capital. 

Shortly after Ramesses became celebrated and re- 
nowned as the "Hero of Kadesh," Moses had the mis- 
fortune to slay an Egyptian, and fled to the land of 
Midian to escape punishment. We are told that it 
came to pass in those days "when Moses was grown," 
that he went unto his brethren and looked on their 
burdens, and he spied an Egyptian smiting a He- 
brew, etc. This was certainly eleven, and probably 
not more than twenty, years after Ramesses began to 



436 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

reign as sole king, and agrees with the presence of 
the court and "Pharaoh's Daughter" at the city of 
Ramesses. 

Now, imagine the children of Israel in bondage, 
driven on and afflicted by taskmasters, and sighing 
and crying by reason thereof for sixty-six years 
and two months from the accession as sole-king 
to the death of Ramesses II, and you will be better 
able to appreciate the weight and importance of the 
words, "And it came to pass after a long time [or, as 
some have rendered it, 'in the process of time'], that 
the king of Egypt died." When this happened the 
twelve eldest sons of the king, including Cha-em-uaSj 
who had been on the throne as joint-king, had passed 
to their eternal rest, and Fate decreed that Mer-nu- 
ptah, or Menophthah, should become the successor of 
the celebrated "Son of Sethos," and pose before the 
world as the "Pharaoh of the Exodus." Menophthah 
was well advanced in years when the high office was 
unexpectedly thrust upon him, and he was but poorly 
prepared to assume the grave responsibilities attached 
to it. He did not inherit the towering form, majestic 
features, and commanding presence of his father; 
neither did nature endow him with the bright intellect, 
quick perception, and ready determination of Ram- 
esses. Instead of the broad and liberal religious views 
of his father, he seems to have been bigoted, narrow- 
minded, and superstitious. His character was of an 
anomalous kind, weak and vacillating at one time, 
stubborn and unrelenting at another. 

In the fifth year of this king's reign — that is, in 



History of Ancient Egypt 437 

1491 B. C, the year of the Exodus — Egypt was con- 
fronted by a sudden and unexpected danger, as we 
learn from an important inscription which he ''caused 
to be chiseled on the inner side-wall of one of the 
southern fore-courts of the great temple of Amen at 
Thebes." 

The Libyans and their mercenaries, the Mediter- 
ranean Shardena (Sardinians), Shekel-sha (Sicilian 
rovers), A-ka-ua-sha (Achaian rovers), Liku (Lycians), 
Tur-sha, etc., ''peoples of the north," invaded Egypt, 
and plundered the land. Menophthah equipped the 
choicest of his mercenaries, and assembled his chariots 
from all directions. "His life-guards marched for- 
ward," the most powerful of his warriors came on, 
and the entrance of his mercenaries is said to have 
been a beautiful sight for the inhabitants of Egypt. 
We are informed that the king spoke to the leaders of 
the host, who stood before him, that they should de- 
stroy the people of the Libu (Libyans). "They went 
forth, and the hand of God was with them. Amen 
was at their side as a shield." The news was spread 
abroad that the king in person would take part in the 
campaign on the 14th day of Payni. But, if we under- 
stand the text, which is injured and mutilated in 
part — often in the most important places — as inter- 
preted by Brugsch, whom I have followed above, a 
timely vision served as a convenient pretext for re- 
maining behind within the walls of Memphis. "Then 
his majesty beheld in a dream as if the image of Ptah, 
which is placed at the (gate of the temple), stepped 
down to Pharaoh. It was like a giant. (And it was) 



438 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

as if it spoke to him, ^Remain altogether behind;' and, 
handing to him the battle-sword, 'Mayest thou cast 
off the lazy disposition that is in thee !' " 

Although the vision ironically echoed Menoph- 
thah's fervent wish to "remain behind," it really ad- 
monished him to lay aside the cowardly disposition 
that was in him, and to use the battle-sword that was 
handed to him in defense of his country; but he con- 
strued it as a Divine admonition to remain in Mem- 
phis, and accordingly sent forth the army under the 
leaders of the mercenaries. Fortunately, victory 
crowned the banners of the Egyptians, and we read of 
the triumphal return of the "leaders of the foreign 
mercenaries, the life-guards, the chariots of war, and 
all the warriors of the army, whose service was ended." 

These were, no doubt, the same chariots of war 
which pursued the fleeing Israelites to Pi-hahiroth, 
between Migdol and the sea, before Baal-Zephon. 
Pharaoh made ready his chariot, "and he took six 
hundred chosen chariots and all the chariots of Egypt, 
and captains over every one of them." 

But we merely wanted to illustrate Menophthah's 
weak and vacillating character and his superstitious 
turn of mind, from the contemporary inscription chis- 
eled on the walls of the great Temple of Karnak by 
his own order. 

Manetho's description of this Pharaoh, judging 
from the confused and jumbled extracts from his his- 
tory quoted at random by Josephus, agrees with the 
above in every particular. He tells us that Menoph- 
thah (rendered Amenophath, Amenophthis, Ameno- 



History of Ancient Egypt 439 

phis, etc., by mistake) 'Svas desirous to become a spec- 
tator of the gods," as had Horus, one of his prede- 
cessors in the kingdom, desired the same before him; 
that he communicated this desire to his namesake, 
Menophthah, the son of Papis, who ''seemed to par- 
take of a divine nature, both as to wisdom and the 
knowledge of futurities;" that ''this namesake of his 
told him that he might see the gods if he would clear 
the whole country of the lepers and of the other im- 
pure people;" and that the king was pleased with the 
injunction, and got together all that had any defect 
in their bodies out of Egypt, "eighty thousand in 
number, whom he sent to those quarries which are 
on the east side of the Nile, that they might work in 
them, and be separated from the rest of the Egyp- 
tians." 

So much for Menophthah's superstitious turn of 
mind. Now, as to the weak and vacillating traits of 
his character. "After those that were sent to the 
quarries had continued in that miserable state for a 
long while, the king was desired that he would set 
apart the city of Avaris, which was then left desolate 
of the shepherds, for their habitation and protection, 
which desire he granted them." This proves that he 
completely reversed his original policy within less than 
seven years, for the ignominious flight to Ethiopia 
took place in the eighth year of his reign. 

When the lepers and impure people, who had in 
the meantime fortified Avaris by building new walls 
around it, had risen in open revolt, and had been 
joined by the shepherds from Jerusalem — that is, the 



440 A Self-Verifying Chronological 

Canaanite descendants of the 'Aamu driven out of 
Egypt by Amosis — Menophthah, the king of Egypt, 
was in great confusion; and in the first place assem- 
bled the multitude of the Egyptians, and took counsel 
with their leaders, and sent for their sacred animals to 
hi^; especially for those that were principally wor- 
shiped in the temples, and gave a particular charge to 
the priests distinctly, that they should hide the images 
of their gods with the utmost care. He also sent his 
son, Sethos (►S'^^^ //, Mer-nu-ptah), who was also 
named Ramesses from his father, Rhampses, being 
but five years old, to a friend of his. He then passed 
on with the rest of the Egyptians, being three hundred 
thousand of the most warlike of them, against the 
enemy, who met them. Yet he did not join battle 
with them; but thinking that would be to fight against 
the gods, he returned back and came to Memphis, 
where he took Apis and the other sacred animals 
which he had sent for to him, and presently marched 
into Ethiopia, together with his whole army and mul- 
titude of Egyptians; for the King of Ethiopia was 
under an obligation to him, on which account he re- 
ceived him and took care of all the multitude that was 
with him, while the country supplied all that was nec- 
essary for the food of the men. He also allotted cities 
and villages for this exile, that was to be from its be- 
ginning during those fatally determined thirteen 
years. Moreover, he pitched a camp for his Ethi- 
opian army, as a guard to King Menophthah, upon 
the borders of Egypt. And this was the state of things 
in Ethiopia." 



History of Ancient Egypt 441 

Now, when we bear in mind that the lepers and 
impure people numbered but eighty thousand and 
the shepherds two hundred thousand all told, and 
Menophthah's army consisted of three hundred thou- 
sand men "of the most warhke of them," we must 
confess that his conduct on this occasion was the most 
shameful and pusillanimous to be found in the annals 
of Egyptian history. The king, who publicly boasted 
that *'he was crowned to preserve life to mortals;" 
that ''he was brought in as king to protect men;" 
that ''there was strength in him to do this, because he 
was the Hkeness of the beautiful faced Ptah;" and that 
"he was a hero, who took no count of hundreds of 
thousands on the day of the turmoil of battle," 
marches forth with three hundred thousand of the 
most warlike of the Egyptians, including the veterans 
who had overthrown the Libyans and their European 
allies, arrives in sight of the enemy, his inferior in 
numbers, organization, and discipline, and then turns 
his back and leaves his country to its fate — its cities, 
towns, and inhabitants a helpless prey in the clutches 
of a cruel and barbarous foe. Manetho assures us 
that the Canaanites, when they came down together 
with the polluted Egyptians, treated the Egyptians 
in the most barbarous manner, and were guilty of 
horrid wickedness ; for they set the cities and villages 
on fire, destroyed the images of the gods, forced the 
priests and prophets to be the executioners of the 
sacred animals, and then ejected them naked out of 
the country. 

This much, however, must be said in extenuation 



442 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

of Menophthah's extraordinary conduct. Following 
the sure guidance of the astronomical numbers, 
checked by the four Sothiac months (four hundred 
and eighty years) between the Exodus and the Build- 
ing of the Temple, the Invasion of the Canaanites and 
the FHght to Ethiopia took place about three years 
after the Exodus, and Menophthah may have been 
laboring under the effects of the terrifying events 
which preceded and accompanied the departure of the 
Israelites from Egypt. 

We have already seen that a Sothiac festival, 
known as a ''hib-sed," was celebrated in the second 
year of this Pharaoh's reign — that is, in the year 1494 
B. C, or ninety years (30X3) after the Sothiac epoch 
of Epiphi, 1584 B. C. As Menophthah mounted the 
throne in 1495 B. C. (add epoch-reign of Seti I, to 
wit, twenty-three years, to the sixty-six years and two 
months of Ramesses II), the celebration of this festi- 
val "on time," in the second year of his reign, is a most 
remarkable and fortuitous coincidence. The Exodus 
occurred on the 15th day of Epiphi (Apapi) in the 
fifth year of Menophthah's reign, 1491 B. C. "This 
day came ye out in the month of Abib." (Exodus 
xiii, 4.) Now, as the defeat of the Libyans and their 
European allies took place on the 3d of Epiphi, in the 
same year, the Exodus may have been closely con- 
nected with the invasion of these foreigners. 

Although there are several suspicious-looking 
blanks in the great inscription of Menophthah, where, 
from the context, we might expect to find the name of 



History of Ancient Egypt 443 

the Hebrews, or Israelites, several portions of it, in 
my opinion, referred to their revolt and preparations 
to leave the land. Lines 7, 8, and 9 read as follows, 
with hypothetical restorations of Brugsch: 

"(For the foreign peoples (?) had long since made 
inroads from the east, and had pitched) their tents 
before the town of Pi-bailos (Byblus, Bilbeis); they 
found themsejves on the canal Sha-ka-na, to the north 
of the canal Oa (of Heliopolis), (so that the adjoining 
land) was not cultivated, but was left as pasture for 
cattle on account of the foreigners. It lay waste 
there from the times of our forefathers. All the rulers 
(ur-u) of Upper Egypt sat in their intrenchments, 
. . . and the rulers {ur-u) of Lower Egypt found 
themselves in the midst of their cities, surrounded 
with earthworks, cut o^ from everything by warriors, 
for they had no mercenaries to oppose to them. Thus 
had it been (until the day when King Menophthah) 
ascended the throne of Horus." 

The above can not refer to the invasion of the Lib- 
yans under their king, "Marjui," because it took place 
in the fifth year of Menophthah's reign. The "foreign 
people" (Peti-shuf) here alluded to were the He- 
brews, who had been taken from their work and gath- 
ered together by their "elders," under the direction 
of Aaron and Moses, and it seems that they had 
pitched their tents before the town of Bilbeis, which 
was not far from Bubastis. This position commanded 
the approach to the Wady Tumilat and the important 
canal by which it was watered, and constituted an ex- 
cellent base from which the Hebrews might co-oper- 



444 ^ Self- Verifying Chronological 

ate with the army of the Libyans, which was ap- 
proaching from the west. The statement that the 
district was not cultivated, but was "left as pasture for 
cattle on account of the foreigners," could not apply 
to the Libyans, because it had lain thus from the times 
of his forefathers. The "land of Goshen," however, 
had been used by the Hebrews as pasture for two 
hundred and fifteen years. The concluding sentence, 
therefore, should be restored, as follows, "Thus had it 
been since the day when King Menophthah ascended 
the throne of Horus." 

De Rouge, I believe, was the first to show that the 
Exodus occurred shortly after the death of Ramesses 
II, and not at the end of Menophthah's reign; and, fur- 
thermore, that as Moses was eighty years old when 
he and Aaron stood before Pharaoh, and one hundred 
and twenty years old when he died, the "forty years 
in the wilderness" leave but one year for the successive 
plagues. 

We must bear in mind that Aaron, not Moses, ap- 
peared as the head and front of the movement in 
Egypt. We are told : "And the Lord said to Aaron, 
Go into the wilderness to meet Moses. And he went, 
and met him in the mount of God, and kissed him." 
"And Moses and Aaron went and gathered together 
all the elders of the children of Israel: and Aaron 
spake all the words which the Lord had spoken to 
Moses." 

Several separate and distinct accounts of the Ex- 
odus have been patched together in the present book 
of Exodus, so that this fact is stated several times. 



History of Ancient Egypt 445 

Aaron is the spokesman of Moses unto the people. 
Moses says: "Behold, the children of Israel have not 
hearkened unto me; how then shall Pharaoh hear 
me, who am of uncircumcised lips?" Again we read: 
"And Moses said before the Lord, Behold, I am of 
uncircumcised lips, and how shall Pharaoh hearken 
,unto me? And the I^ord said unto Moses, See, I 
have made thee a god (?) to Pharaoh; and Aaron thy 
brother shall be thy prophet. Thou shalt speak all 
that I command thee; and Aaron thy brother shall 
speak unto Pharaoh," etc. 

Moses had been absent from Egypt for more than 
fifty years; but Aaron the Levite had lived there for 
eighty-three years; and, although we are ignorant of 
the history of his long and eventful life prior to the 
year 1491 B. C, we can safely assume that he held 
a high and influential position among his country- 
men. 

According to the extract of Josephus, Manetho 
referred to him as follows : "It was also reported that 
the priest who ordained their poHty and their laws 
was by birth of Heliopolis; and his name Osarsiph, 
from Osiris, who was the god of Heliopolis ; but that 
when he was gone over to these people his name was 
changed, and he was called Moses." 

Josephus adds to this and foregoing extracts: 
"This is what the Egyptians relate about the Jews, 
with much more, which I omit for the sake of brevity." 
By "Jews" he means the Israelites, of course, and not 
the one tribe only. 

After explaining that Avaris, which had been al- 



446 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

lotted to the lepers and impure people, was, accord- 
ing to the ancient theology, Typhon's city, Manetho 
continues, as follows : 

"But when these men were gotten into it, and 
found the place fit for a revolt, they appointed them- 
selves a ruler out of the priests of Heliopolis, whose 
name was Osarsiph, and they took their oath that 
they would be obedient to him in all things. He then, 
in the first place, made this law for them, that they 
should neither worship the Egyptian gods nor should 
abstain from any of those sacred animals which they 
have in the highest esteem, but kill and destroy them 
all; that they should join themselves to nobody but 
that were of this confederacy. When he had made 
such laws as these, and many more such as were 
mainly opposite to the customs of the Egyptians, he 
gave order that they should employ the multitude of 
the hands they had in building walls about their city, 
and make themselves ready for a war with King 
Menophthah, while he did himself take into his friend- 
ship the other priests and those that were polluted 
with them, and sent ambassadors to those shepherds 
who had been driven out of the land by Tethmosis to 
the city called Jerusalem; whereby he informed them 
of his own affairs, and of the state of those others who 
had been treated after such an ignominious manner, 
and desired that they should come with one consent 
to his assistance in this war against Egypt. He also 
promised that he would, in the first place, bring them 
back to their ancient city and country Avaris, and 
provide a plentiful maintenance for their multitude; 
that he would protect them and fight for them as oc- 
casion should require, and would easily reduce the 
country under their dominion." 



History of Ancient Egypt 447 

We here break off the quotation, to remind the 
reader that the term "impure people" was often used 
to designate foreigners who did not observe the re- 
ligion or customs of the Egyptians. The Hebrews, 
therefore, may have been referred to in this account 
as "impure people." But how can we possibly identify 
Osarsiph, or Arsiph, a priest of HeliopoHs, with 
Aaron the I^evite? In the first place, it is evident 
that Aaron and Moses were confounded and regarded 
as one person. We are dealing with the Egyptian 
account, in which the name Aaron certainly appeared 
in somewhat different form. In the Harris papyrus 
we find that a Canaanite, named Ar-su (Ar-suff), 
raised himself up to be a prince, and compelled all 
the people to pay him tribute. 

Now, we must not forget that Joseph was married 
to Aseneth, the daughter of Putiphero, priest of Heli- 
opolis, showing the connection of the Israelites with 
this city from the earliest times. Even after the 
Exodus, in the times of Ramesses III and Ramesses 
IV, we still find Eber-i-u dwelling as "settled people" 
in Heliopolis. But is it at all strange that Arsiph, 
Os-ar-siph, or Aaron should appear as a priest of 
Heliopolis? Several stelae at West Silsilis, dating 
from the beginning of Menophthah's reign, show this 
king followed by the high priest of Amen, named 
Rui, or Lui. Now, what is Ltd but Louis, Levi, etc. ? 
This name Lui, or Levi, is directly connected with the 
priestly function, so that "Aaron the Levite'' is equiva- 
lent to Aaron the priest. We must remember that 



44S A Self- Verifying Chronological 

the Bible tells us absolutely nothing about the history 
of Aaron previous to his connection with the Exodus; 
but we are bound to assume that he was a priest, thor- 
oughly educated in the various branches of theology 
and trained in the complicated ritual and ceremonial 
of the office. 

A few months after the Exodus, Aaron and his 
sons, Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar, were set 
apart for the priest's office. (Exodus xxviii, i.) The 
daughter of Seti, who adopted Moses and had him 
brought up with so much care, no doubt arranged to 
have his brother Aaron provided with the ''next best 
office to prince," namely, high priest. Thus Moses, 
the son of Pharaoh's daughter, naturally takes the 
place of Pharaoh, while Aaron takes that of high 
priest. We have seen how the name of Joseph {la-saf) 
was ''turned" to Safnath-pa-an-eah (Saf-na-ta-pa- 
anech), in which the element sa-f, or "saviour," was 
retained. In the case of Aaron, the element "ar" 
seems to have been retained. The name Osiris re- 
solves itself into Hvts-ar, or Hus-ir, meaning "the 
house or abode of the eye." In this name, Hus-ar, 
"ar," or "eye" — that is, Ra in his capacity of right 
eye — is undoubtedly the main element, and the only 
one that could be used in "turning" the name of 
Aaron. When Manetho, the learned priest, says that 
the priest of Heliopolis, who ordained the polity and 
laws of the Israelites, was named Osarsiph, from 
Osiris, he goes down to the root "ar," "eye," and the 
form "Osar^' used by him may be equivalent to "Ar." 

Cheremon, according to the extract of Josephus, 



History of Ancient Egypt 449 

distinguished between Moses and Aaron, whom he 
calls Moses and Joseph (?). Here some copyist mis- 
took ^rsiph for /(?seph. He calls them ''scribes" — 
that is, educated men — adding that /oseph — that is, 
^rsiph — ''was a sacred scribe." It is remarkable that 
Cheremon and I^ysimachus, in their confused and 
garbled accounts of the Exodus, substitute Pelusium 
for Avaris, indicating that the site of Avaris was in 
the vicinity of the later Pelusium. Now, is it not plain 
that the simple-minded Cheremon called Arsiph a 
"sacred scribe" because he was, in fact, a priest f 

We will now retrace our steps, and briefly reca- 
pitulate some of the main points of the Bible account. 

"After a long time" (sixty-six years) Ramesses II 
dies. Moses, who had lived as an exile in Midian for 
fully fifty years, hears the news, and prepares himself 
to lead his countrymen out of Egypt. Aaron, or 
Arsiph, visits his brother Moses at Mount Sinai, and 
arranges the details. 

They go to Egypt, assemble the elders, and make 
known their plans. The people are taken from the 
works. Moses and Aaron stand before Pharaoh, and 
demand the release of the Israelites. Pharaoh com- 
plains that they have made the people rest from their 
burdens, and commands the taskmasters and officers 
of the people to increase their burdens. The people 
are put to work again, their burdens are increased, 
and when they fail to fulfill their task in making 
brick, their officers, whom Pharaoh's taskmasters had 
set over them, are beaten. 

These events, we may say, culminate in the fifth 
29 



450 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

year of Menophthah's reign. Then come a series of 
plagues, the meaning of which I will not here inquire 
into. But it was at this time that the Libyans and 
their Mediterranean allies, the Sardinians, Sicilians, 
Lycians, Achaians, etc., invaded the Northwestern 
Delta, and turned things "upside down" in Egypt. 
While all of the energies of the Egyptians were bent 
upon expelling the dangerous foreign foes, the Israel- 
ites were again withdrawn from their works and as- 
sembled in one place. The Exodus proper took place 
twelve days after the great defeat of the Libyans ; but 
there were many other foreigners, or so-called "im- 
pure people," in Egypt, besides the Israelites led out 
by Moses and Aaron. Josephus, it seems, found some 
mention of the Israelites in Manetho's work, for he 
tells us, "This is what the Egyptians relate about the 
Jews, with much more, which I omit for the sake of 
brevity;" but he applies to the Israelites in particular 
much that related to the "foreigners" in general. The 
monuments show that Menophthah remained in 
Egypt for about three years after the Exodus. 'Papyri 
of his third year show that he held control of the por- 
tion of Canaan bordering on the sea. In his eighth 
year there was carried into eflfect, according to Pha- 
raoh's command, the passage of certain tribes of 
Shasu from the land of Edom through the fortress 
Menophthah, which is situated in Succoth (Thukii), 
to the lakes of the city of Pithom (Per-tum, Patumos), 
of Mer-nu-ptah Hofep-hir-ma, which are in the land 
of Thuku, in order to feed themselves and to feed their 
herds on the possessions of Pharaoh, 



History of Ancient Egypt 451 

The explanation of this is found in the Exodus 
of the IsraeHtes, for their departure had left these 
lands unoccupied. There are no dated inscriptions, 
or papyri, after the eighth year of Menophthah's 
reign. The Flight to Ethiopia, therefore, took place 
after he had reigned seven years and x months. In 
some of the lists Menophthah (written Amenophis by 
mistake) has eight years, showing that Manetho men- 
tioned this portion of his reign and the thirteen years 
of the exile separately. In the pseudo-Sothis List, 
we find, transferred from this portion of Manetho's 
Lists, "No. II Akesephthres," with a reign of thir- 
teen years. I am inclined to see in this Hak Siphthas — 
that is, the ''hyk" Sa-ptah — and his queen, Ta-user-et, 
who reigned in Thebes during the absence of the real 
Pharaoh in Ethiopia. It seems that Sa-ptah, or Siph- 
thah, remained in undisputed possession of Thebes 
and the South generally, for he had time to construct, 
and partially decorate, a large tomb in the necrop- 
olis of Thebes. It is tomb No. 14 of Baedeker, and 
lies between tomb No. 13, which bears the names of 
Seti II, and seems to have been abandoned, and tomb 
No. 15, belonging to Seti II. Tomb No. 14 was ap- 
propriated by Set-nechf, a fact indicating that he was 
related to Queen Ta-user-et, whose sarcophagus was 
deposited in the great sarcophagus-chamber. An in- 
scription at Syene proclaims that a high ofificlal named 
Bai put an end to some great "evil" by placing Sa- 
ptah on the throne of his father. This "evil," no 
doubt, was the state of anarchy caused by the flight 
of Menophthah, 



452 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

Josephus tells us, upon the authority of Manetho, 
that after the expiration of the ill-fated period of thir- 
teen years Menophthah returned from Ethiopia with 
a great army, as did his son Ramesses with another 
army also; and both of them joined battle with the 
Canaanites and the "polluted people," and beat them 
and slew a great many of them, and pursued them to 
the bounds of Syria." 

These ''polluted people" could not have been the 
Israelites who were led out into the Wilderness by 
Moses and Aaron, because, according to the Scrip- 
ture account, they were no longer in Egypt. Man- 
etho is fully borne out as to this great victory and the 
pursuit to the borders of Syria by existing monu- 
ments. Seti II, for instance, erected buildings in 
Thebes, HeliopoHs, and other parts of Egypt, fortified 
the frontiers of Palestine, guarded the wells in that 
vicinity, and re-established the authority of Pharaoh 
over Egypt from Pelusium to Nubia. But his glori- 
ous and eventful reign seems to have been cut short, 
and' it is possible that Menophthah outlived him. 

The tomb of Amen-mes (No. lo in Baedeker) was 
constructed before that of Ramesses III, and, as I 
judge from its position, after those of Siphthah and 
Seti II. It is probable, therefore, that Amenmeses 
(Amenemes) succeeded Seti II as actual ruler at 
Thebes for twenty-six years. Although, in the au- 
thorized list, Menophthah had nineteen years and six 
months and Sethos fifty-one years, Manetho in the 
body of his work explained that Menophthah actually 
reigned eight years (seven years+x months) and Hyk 



History of Ancient Egypt 453 

Siphthah thirteen years (twelve years and x months), 
after which Amenmes reigned twenty-six years. We 
have seen that Eusebius followed the unknown author 
of the bogus Sothis List wherever he could. Thus we 
find in one of his lists of the Nineteenth Dynasty : 

Amenephthis, ... - 8 years 

Amenemes 26 " 

The reign of Amen-mes may have been divided by 
the epoch 1464 B. C, as follows: 

Amen-mes, before epoch, *' Miamous," 12 years 

Amen-mes, after epoch, " Chamois," 14 " 

It is certain, therefore, that there were troublous 
times in Egypt, particularly in Eower Egypt, between 
the death of Sell 11 and the accession of Set-necht; and 
it was during this period of Egyptian imbecility that 
the Israelites conquered Canaan. 

Petrie, following the corrupt form of the name, 
identifies ^'Amenophis," Manetho's Pharaoh of the 
Exodus, with Amenophthis III. But this identifica- 
tion is wholly untenable. When Josephus produced 
Manetho as a witness to the antiquity of the Jewish 
nation, he set down the reigns of seventeen kings, 
beginning with Tethmosis and ending with Menoph- 
thah, here expressly called Amenophis. In this Hst, 
as we have demonstrated, the reign of Sethos was 
entirely omitted, and the side-reigns of Acherres, 
etc., erroneously inserted. This gave Josephus an 
opportunity to introduce Sethos and Ramesses a 
second time, and thus swell his total to five hundred 
and eighteen years; but he assures us that Manetho 



454 ^ Self- Verifying Chronological 

introduced this Amenophis after Ramesses, the son 
of Sethos, who reigned sixty-six years. By this, 
Amenophis III is necessarily excluded. Again, the 
son of this supposed Amenophis was named Sethos 
{Seti II), but was familiarly called Ramesses after his 
grandfather Ramesses 11. By this also Amenophis 
III is necessarily excluded. 

THE lA-NIM, OR lONIANS 

One of the most remarkable surprises to be found 
in the Pyramid Texts is the frequent mention of the 
la-nim, or lonians. The name la-nim, meaning the 
la, or lo, collectively (all), as it is written in the 
Pyramids of the Sixth Dynasty, beginning with that 
of Teta (Tithoes), appears unchanged, and written 
with the same identical hieroglyphs, on the "Rosetta 
Stone," where it is rendered ''lonians." In the Lists 
of the "Nine Foreign Nations" (Nine Bows), dating 
from the earliest times, the la-nim are described as 
inhabiting ''the islands of the sea," that is, Mediter- 
ranean Sea, "and numerous foreign lands." 

There can be no doubt, therefore, that the la-nim 
of the Pyramid inscriptions and Egyptian monuments 
generally, were the lonians, or Greeks, as they were 
afterwards called. 

The route to the lands of the lonians is accurately 
described in the Pyramid of Teta, more than 3,100 
years before the Christian era. We there read : "Thy 
two sisters, Isis and Nephthis, come to thee (the 
deceased Teta), and they convey thee past the town 
of Kem-et-itr-et, in thine name of 'Kem-nr,^ and past 



History of Ancient Egypt 455 

the fortress {anehu, Vails') of U az-et-ur-et ('Great 
Green') in thine name of the sea of Uaz-iir, and thou 
passeth (?) the great bend {ur-et shen-et) at the lake 
(bay) of Shen-et ur-et, and thou circlest around the 
circle which encircles the lonians (em-ku deben-te 
shen-et em dehen pacher la-nim)," etc. (Pyramid Texts, 
pages 122-123, Teta, lines 274 and 275.) 

However we may choose to render the archaic 
language of the inscription, its general meaning 
(owing to the free use of determinatives) is clear and 
unmistakable. The journey thus briefly sketched, 
was from Egypt, by way of the town of Kem-et Ur-et, 
on the lake of Kem-ur, and the fortress of Uaz-et 
Ur-et, on the sea of Uaz-ur, and around the great 
bend, at the southeast corner of the Mediterranean 
Sea, and the corresponding curve formed by the Gulf 
of Iskenderun, at the northeastern corner of this sea, 
to Ionia and the countless islands of the Grecian 
Archipelago, including, of course, Greece itself, which 
was also regarded as an island. At the beginning of 
the Sixth Dynasty it is almost certain that the Red 
Sea extended farther north than it does now, and 
included Lake Timsah, then called ''she,'' or sea, of 
Kem-ur, ''Great Black," in contradistinction to Uaz-ur 
(Sax. water, Ger. wasser), "Great Green." The town 
of Kem-ur was situated on the gulf (now lake) at the 
eastern end of the Wady Tumilat, probably in the 
vicinity of the later Pithom (Patumos, Per-tum), and 
near the present line of the Suez Canal, where it 
served to guard one of the main approaches to the 
upper Delta. 



456 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

The fortress (anebu^ "walls") of Uaz-ur was sit- 
uated near the Mediterranean, in the vicinity of the 
later Pelusium, east of the mouth of the Pelusiac arm 
of the Nile. The great commercial highway leading 
from Egypt to Canaan, and thence to Asia Minor, 
passed through, and was controlled by, this impor- 
tant fortress. In the time of the Nineteenth Dynasty, 
the main road seems to have been by way of Tanis, 
crossing the Pelusiac arm of the Nile north of Kem-ur, 
at the point still called "El-kantarah," the Bridge. 
As late as the beginning of the Twelfth Dynasty, how- 
ever, to judge from the route taken by Sa-nuh-et, in 
his celebrated flight from Egypt to the land of Canaan, 
the main road to Asia followed the Wady Tumilat 
to the sea of Kem-ur. 

It will be in the nature of a surprise to modern 
historians to learn that, 2,000 years before the "Siege 
of Troy," Greece, Ionia, and the neighboring islands 
were inhabited by the great nation of the lonians, 
(for la-nim, "the lo collectively,'' points to a people 
divided into many nations and spread over a wide 
extent of territory), Moses, who drew from ancient 
Egyptian sources, derives lavan (lanim) from la- 
pheth (la-pet), and tells us that by these (lavan and 
his so-called sons) were the islands of the Gentiles 
settled. The monuments also abound in allusions to 
these "islands of the sea." 

As Japheth was "born" one hundred years before 
the Elood, to wit, about 2448 B. C, and his son lavan 
after the Flood, the statement of Moses as to the 
birth of Japheth, etc., would seem to be anachron- 



History of Ancient Egypt 457 

istic by at least seven hundred years, in view of the 
facts now revealed by contemporary monuments; 
but we must bear in mind that, in the ancient list 
copied by Moses, Noah, Japheth, and lavan, repre- 
sent nations organized into governments modeled 
after the Egyptian pattern; hence they are repre- 
sented as ''born" at certain dates. For example, 
Japheth was born when the la-pet, or the ''foreign 
lo," settled in the northwestern angle of the Delta, 
were organized into a separate, independent govern- 
ment. Although the "lo collectively" inhabited the 
"islands of the sea," Ionia and Greece, for centuries 
prior to the Flood, they were organized into the 
governments named by lonians who had emigrated 
from Egypt after the Hyksos Flood. The Dis- 
persion was from Egypt, and not from the alluvial 
plains of Babylonia. 

The Greeks preserved a recollection of their early 
connection with Egypt, and of the fact that their 
civilization and religion were derived, in part at least, 
from the Egyptians. A number of legends embody- 
ing this recollection has come down to us through 
the classical writers. The wanderings of lo, the 
daughter of Inachus, king of Argos, represent the 
migrations of a portion of the ancient la from Greece 
to Egypt. Crossing the Hellespont, and following 
the coast, they wandered through Asia Minor, around 
the Gulf of Iskenderun, through Canaan and the 
desert separating that country from Egypt, to finally 
settle down on the banks of the Nile. The "Sup- 
pliants" of ^schylus is founded on these legends, 



458 A Self-Verifying Chronological 

according to which lo, driven to Egypt, gave birth 
to a son called Epaphos, who founded a settlement 
of lonians in the Delta. 

The ''suppliant daughters of Danaus" claim to 
be descended from these Ionian settlers in Egypt. 
The city of Argos, the capital of Inachus, was sit- 
uated in the "Apian" plain, so named after Apis {Api, 
Nile), who cleared it of wild beasts, and introduced 
the arts of civilization. We have seen that the Apis- 
bull, the symbol of the Nile, or Egyptus, was ven- 
erated in Memphis from the time of King Binothris 
of the Second Dynasty, or as far back as 3894 
B. C. It is clear, therefore, that civilization was 
carried from Egypt to Argos, and not from Argos 
to Egypt. 

Inachus, it seems, was contemporary with Aah- 
mes, and, as the "foreign lo," according to Moses, 
established a government in Egypt one hundred 
years before the Hyksos Invasion (for that is what 
is meant by Japheth, son of Noah), it is plain that 
lo could not have been the daughter of Inachus. 
Epaphus, at first sight, seems to be Apapi, which 
has come down to us in the Greek forms Apophis 
and Epiphi, but I am satisfied that it is a corrupt 
form of Apis. We have seen that "Sethos, or Seti I, 
assumed the epoch-title "Osiropis," that is, Hus-ir- 
api, at the beginning of the Sothiac month of Epiphi, 
1584 B. C. This king, as his name indicates, was 
devoted to Set, or Typhon, who was identified with 
Apap. The subtle blending of Osiris and Api in the 
title "Osiropis" was the cause of the remarkable con- 



History of Ancient Egypt 459 

fusion between the ancient symbols of good and evil, 
to wit, Osiris and Typhon. There seems to be some 
distant connection between Api and Apap, for the 
latter is simply a duplication of Ap. Now Manetho 
tells us that Sethos was called by the other name 
Egyptus, which is plainly Api, or Osiropis. In 
Homer's time the Nile was invariably called Egyptus, 
from Apis, the symbol of the Nile. It was thus that 
Sutech, or Set, ''the serpent more subtle than any 
beast of the field," seduced Ivife, the ancient rehgion 
of Egypt. 

The hopeless confusion in which the subject be- 
came involved is reflected in the Greek legends, where 
the brothers Danaus and Egyptus appear as sons of 
Bel, or Belus, who was descended from Epaphus, 
the son of lo. Now Bel, or Baal, is but another 
name for Sutech, the so-called "lord god" of the 
serpent-worshiping Hyksos, who was identified with 
Set and Apap. The "old serpent" was the symbol 
of all these Typhonic personations. Thus Danaus 
and Egyptus (Harmais and Sethos) appear as sons 
of Set, who is represented as the ofifspring of lo, 
through Epaphus. The goddess lo was often pic- 
tured with the horns of a cow, showing that she was 
originally the same as Hathor, or Isis, the consort of 
Osiris; but the blending of Osiris and Api, the sym- 
bols of good and evil, led to the mistake of identify- 
ing Osiris, as well as Api, with Egyptus, or the Nile. 
Api and Apap may have been derived from vS*^^, or 
Bel, but Osiris was certainly not. On the other 
hand, Osiris was connected with Isis, or lo, but Bel 



460 A Self-Verifying Chronological 

was not. The confusion following the amalgama- 
tion of the symbols of good and evil seems to have 
affected all alike, except Moses. Josephus regarded 
Set and his posterity as eminently good and virtu- 
ous, that is, as Osirian, and attempted to derive the 
Jews from this symbol of evil and darkness. Sev- 
eral modern Egyptologists mistake Isis for the al- 
luvial plain of Egypt, and Osiris for the Nile. 

In the "Supphants," the "daughters of Danaus," 
the offspring of lo, Isis, or Life, are represented as 
fleeing from the unlawful embraces of the "sons of 
Egyptus," that is, Api, Set, or Bel. 

The separation of the lonians from the common 
stock must have occurred at a very ancient date, for 
they were already in their well-known seats at the 
beginning of the Sixth Dynasty. 

The affinity between the ancient Egyptian and 
ancient Greek languages, however, is not so strongly 
marked as it is between the former and the ancient 
Saxon and Scandinavian languages. The reasons for 
this appear incidentally throughout this work. 

Suffice it to say that the mummies and portrait- 
statues of Seti, or Egyptus, and his son Ramesses, 
the portrait-statues of Chiifu, Chafra, Usertasen I, 
etc., and the mummy of Menthusuphis I, all reveal 
the pure European type as exemplified by the Greek 
and Germanic nations. 

In the Pyramid Texts, page 167, we find: '\Hns- 
iri Pepa) ur-te deben-te em deben-nu la-nim" which 
Maspero interprets thus: "And here thou art grand, 
and thou circleth around the circle of the Hati-nibu.'* 



History of Ancient Egypt 461 

This is repeated (Pyramid Texts, pages 265 and 342) 
Menthusuphis I, line 91, and Pepi II, line 98, etc. 

The journey of the ka of the deceased Pharaoh to 
the distant lands of the lonians demonstrated that the 
ancient Egyptians recognized the close relationship 
existing between the two great nations. 

THE 1,050 YEARS OF MANETHO'S THIRD 

BOOK 

Manetho's Third Book opened at the Sothiac era 
1324 B. C, which was known to the Greeks as the 
"Era of Menophres," and closed at the end of Nek- 
tanebos' {Necht-neh-ef) reign, or 339 B. C. Thus 
there were in the direct, or chronological line, ex- 
actly nine hundred and eighty-five years. Now add 
to this sum the sixty-five years of the Twenty-fifth Dy- 
nasty of Ethiopians who ruled contemporaneously 
with the four native kings of the Twenty-fourth Dy- 
nasty, and we have the 1,050 years of Manetho's 
Third Book. The separate dynasties stood thus : 

" Era of Menoplires," 1324 B. C. 

Twentieth Dynasty of seven Theban kings, . . . 185 

1739B.C. 
Twenty-first Dynasty of seven Tanite kings, . . 130 

1009 B. C. 
Twenty-second Dynasty of nine Bubastite kings, . 220 

"789 B.C. 
Twenty-third Dynasty of three Tanite kings {58), 59 

730 B. C. 
Twenty-fourth Dynasty of four Saite (?) kings, . . 65 

~665B. C. 
Twenty-sixth Dynasty of six Saite kings, .... 140 

Beginning of Persian Dynasty, 525 B. C. 



462 A Self-Verifying Chronological 

The Twenty-fifth Dynasty of three Ethiopian kings 
reigned sixty-five years contemporaneously with the 
Twenty-fourth Dynasty, and is, therefore, omitted in 
the direct or chronological line. 

When the lists were falsified in order to make 
it appear that the Eighteenth Dynasty commenced at 
1648 B. C, and that the Nineteenth Dynasty, and 
Manetho's Second Book also, ended at 1181 B. C, 
the accepted date of the Kail of Troy, the totals of 
the Twentieth and succeeding Dynasties of the Sec- 
ond Book, down to the Persian Dynasty, were sys- 
tematically reduced, as follows: 

Africanus. Kusebius. 

I^allofTroy, 1181 B. C. 1181 B. C. 

Twentieth Dynasty 135 178 

1046 B. C. 1003 B. C. 

Twenty-first Dynasty, 114 130 

~^2 B. C. 873 B. C. 

Twenty-second Dynasty, ... 120 49 

812 B. C. 824 B. C. 

Twenty-third Dynasty, incl. Zet, 89 44 

723 B. C. 780 B. C. 

Twenty-fourth Dynasty, .... 6 44 

717 B. C. 736 B. C. 

Twenty-fifth Dynasty, 40 44 

677 B. C. 692 B. C. 

Twenty-sixth Dyn., originally, . 151 167 

Beginning of Persian Dynasty, . 525 B. C. 525 B. C. 

Again we notice an elTort on the part of Eusebius 
to correct the errors in the I^ists of Africanus, but, 



History of Ancient Egypt 463 

as he left the beginning of the Twentieth Dynasty 
at 1 181 B. C, the result attained was the reverse 
of that intended. 

We shall notice the changes more particularly 
under the respective heads. 

TWENTIETH DYNASTY OF SEVEN DIOS- 
POLITAN KINGS 

In the Lists of Africanus and Eusebius, the Twen- 
tieth Dynasty, with the exception of the heading, 
"Twentieth Dynasty of twelve (?) Diospolitan Kings," 
and the totals one hundred and eighty-five and one 
hundred and seventy-eight years, is a perfect blank — 
the names of the kings, and their separate reigns 
also, have entirely disappeared! It is evident that 
the pious forger of the pseudo-Sothis List, who used 
these names and the last five names of the Nineteenth 
Dynasty to fill out an actual blank between the 
Twelfth and Seventeenth Dynasties in his fraudu- 
lent list, also tampered with the Manethonian Lists 
of the Twentieth Dynasty, for the twelve kings of 
the present heading represent the seven kings of this 
dynasty and the five kings of the Nineteenth Dy- 
nasty which were surreptitiously removed. 

Manetho's Twentieth Dynasty begins at the 
Sothiac era 1324 B. C. As we have just seen, the first 
seven years of the reign of Ramesses Chamois Meno- 
phres were before this era, and were assigned to the 
second cycle, and accounted for in Manetho's second 



464 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

Book. The Twentieth Dynasty and Manetho's Third 
Book, therefore, begin with the epoch-reign of Meno- 
phres, that is, in the eighth year of the reign of the 
king Harnesses, who stands at the head of this Dy- 
nasty. 

The seven kings of this dynasty, who reigned 
one hundred and eighty-five years after the era 1324 
B. C, that is, from 1324 B. C. to 1139 B. C, appear 
in the pseudo-Sothis I^ist immediately before the 
Hyksos kings. After they were removed from the 
Twentieth Dynasty they were no longer in the way 
of the early Bible chronographers, and, for this 
reason, have come down to us undisturbed. As we 
have already explained, these kings presented an in- 
surmountable obstacle to the artificial chronological 
schemes of the Bible chronographers, owing to the 
fact that the sixth king of this dynasty, Ramesses 
lor-basse, was the well-known epoch-king of Paophi, 
1204 B. C, called Phuoro (not Thuoris), or "King 
Nile," during whose reign the ''Fall of Troy" oc- 
curred. 

We know from the monuments that all the kings 
of this dynasty, as well as the kings of the Nineteenth 
Dynasty who followed Ramesses III, were named 
Ramesses; but each of them also bore an additional 
name. Thus Ramesses III was known as Ramesses 
Hyk-on-nut, from which the abbreviated compound 
name "Rhampsakes" was derived. In fact, it was 
as necessary then as it has been ever since, to dis- 
tinguish a succession of kings bearing the same name 
by distinctive titles. We need not be surprised, there- 



History of Ancient Egypt 465 

fore, to find the seven kings of this dynasty distin- 
guished by separate additional titles. 

I do not think that the order of succession of these 
seven kings has been changed; for the epoch-reign 
of Ramesses Menophres, which was {^Z^-J^ twenty- 
nine years, still heads the list, and the reign of Ram- 
esses lar-bash (Gushing River), Phuoro (Pa-iar, ''The 
River," i. e., Nile) or "King Nile," still covers the 
epoch of Paophi {Pa-api, The Nile) 1204 B. C. But 
we must call attention to a significant, tell-tale fact re- 
garding the distinctive titles of the first king of this 
dynasty. His reign commenced about 1331 B. C, 
and the first seven years of the same were cut off and 
devoured by the standing female hippopotamus 
Ta-ur-et (Thaouris), the symbol of the Sothiac year, 
who is depicted with the crocodile, the symbol of a 
Sothiac month, upon her back. At the beginning 
of the new Sothiac year (1324 B. C.) the "re-born" 
king was "re-crowned," and started in, as it were, 
upon a new reign. He received such epoch-titles 
as C/^a-^m-wa^, "Crowned in Thebes,'' A a-tahii-ti, "Off- 
spring of Thoth," and Mer-nu-ph'ra, "Beloved by the 
Sun." The forger of the pseudo-Sothis List was too 
shrewd to transfer any of these titles. He, therefore, 
entered the first king under the name of Ramesses 
only, but gave him the epoch-reign of twenty-nine 
years, instead of the entire reign, which was thirty- 
six years. 

We will now bring these kings forth from their 
hiding-place, and restore them to the Twentieth Dy- 
nasty, where they belong. 
30 



466 



A Self- Verifying Chronological 



TWENTIETH DYNASTY OF SEVEN DIOSPOIylTAN KINGS 
I. Ramesses (Athothis), .... 29 years, 



2. Ramessomenes, 15 

3. (Ramesse — ) Usimares, ... 31 

4. Ramesse-seos, 23 

5. Ramessameno, . 19 

6. Ramesse-Iorbasse (King Nile), 39 

7. Ramesse-Uaphru, 29 

Total, 185 



1324 B. C. 

29 
1295 B. C. 

15 
1280 B. C. 

1249 B. C 

23 
1226 B. C. 

19 
1207 B. C. 

39 
1 168 B. C. 

29 
1 139 B.C. 



Pliny the younger refers to King Nile as "Rham- 
essis who reigned when Ilium was captured," that is, 
circa 1181 B. C. 

Dikaearchos placed the reign of King Nile at 
four hundred and thirty-six years before the first 
Olympiad, that is, circa 1212 B. C, which date is 
only five years before his accession. The king who 
became so celebrated as King Nile was the next to 
the last king who bore the name of Ramesses. Pa-iar, 
or Phuoro, and lar-bash, or lorbasse, are titles de- 
scriptive of the Nile, that is, "The River." Nile it- 
self, as we have demonstrated, is the plural form of 
Pa-iar, to wit, Na-iar-u, Nahal-u, Neil-u, "The 
Rivers," which was applied to the arms, or "heads," 
of the river in the Delta. The Greeks, who came to 



History of Ancient Egypt 467 

Egypt by sea, and sailed up these arms, became 
acquainted with the plural form Na-iar-u. Homer 
calls the river Egyptos. 

Certain scientists have lately contended that the 
Sothiac system was invented about 136 A. D., when 
Sirius rose heliacally on the first day of Thoth; but 
the use of such epoch-titles as lorbasse, Phuoro, 
Athothis, King Nile, etc., by Manetho, Eratosthenes, 
and Dikaearchos, not to speak of the Turin payrus, 
where a king of the Sixteenth Dynasty is termed 
lan-ab, shows that it is frivolous and groundless. 
In his "Book of Kings," Lepsius has published the 
names and titles of the ten kings who succeeded 
Ramesses III, and bore the name of Ramesses. He 
has numbered them according to certain indications 
found on the monuments, from IV to XIII inclusive; 
but this enumeration was tentative only, and never 
intended to be final. Maspero's arrangement of these 
kings differs somewhat from that of Lepsius. Num- 
bers IX and XIII of Eepsius are marked as epoch- 
kings by the title Cha-em-uas, and, if Ramesses IX 
is King Nile, Ramesses XIII must be King Meno- 
phres. Now it happens that Ramesses XIII Cham- 
ois was called Hyk-6n-nut, and bore the Horus-title 
Mer-nu-pKra. As Anu ruled the last quarter of the 
year, the title Hyk-Anu points to the seven years be- 
fore the era, 1324 B. C. None of the other kings has 
a title corresponding to Menophres, and it is sig- 
nificant that Mernuphra is this king's Horus-title; 
that is, title in spe. 

Ramesses IX Chamois bears the additional title 



468 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

Nofer-ka-ra, or Nephercheres, which, in my opinion, 
symbolizes the completion of a Sothiac month : "Per- 
fect is the Ka of Ra." 

Until I have had an opportunity to examine the 
works and monuments of these kings on the spot, 
I must content myself with the following provisional 
arrangement, which is, to some extent, conjectural only: 

No. i8. Ramesses, ........ Ramesses XIII, 29 years 

19. Ramessomenes, Ramesses VII, 15 " 

20. Ramesse Usermares, . . . Ramesses XII, 31 " 

21. Ramesse Sethos, Ramesses VIII, 23 " 

22. Ramessameno, Ramesses X, 19 " 

23. Ramesse-Iorbasse, .... Ramesses IX, 39 " 

24. Ramesse-Uaphru, .... Ramesses XI, 29 " 

The priests informed Diodorus that all these 
kings, except King Nile, abandoned themselves to 
lives of ease and luxury. The monuments confirm 
this in a general way. Menophres, the first of these 
kings, was active as a builder at Thebes, notably in 
the Temple of Chons, who there took the place 
Har-pa-krat, "Horus the Babe." A list of revenues 
collected by Pinehas, "King's son of Cush," is dated 
in his twelfth year. A papyrus now in Turin is dated 
in his seventeenth year. Lastly, a stela of the scribe 
Hora of Abydus, now in the Cairo Museum, was set 
up on the eighth day of Mesori in his twenty-seventh 
year. These dates agree with his epoch-reign of 
twenty-nine years. We have mentioned his tomb in 
another chapter. The second king, Ramesses VII, 
has left a tomb in the Biban-el-Moluk at Thebes, and 
is highly praised in a papyrus now in the Turin 
Museum. 



History of Ancient Egypt 469 

The third king, Ramesses XII, is mentioned in 
a long inscription formerly set up in the Temple of 
Chons. We read that he was in Naharain, as was 
his custom every year, and the kings of all the nations 
came with humility and friendship to the person of 
Pharaoh, bringing gifts of gold, silver, etc. The king 
of Bachtana brought his tribute, and at the head of 
it his eldest daughter, whose beauty pleased Pharaoh 
so much that he made her his wife, bestowing upon 
her the name Nofeni-ra. This inscription bears the 
dates, year 15, Payni 2 2d, year 26, month of Pachons, 
and year 33, Mechir 13th. Although Manetho gives 
this king thirty-one years only, the slight discrep- 
ancy of one year may be owing to a joint-reign. 

The fourth king, Ramesses VIII, who is credited 
with twenty-three years, has left but few monuments, 
and we consequently know little about him. Under 
his predecessor, Egypt seems to have held Canaan 
and Syria, as she probably did in the reign of Ram- 
esses III, but this possession of Canaan may have 
been limited to a comparatively narrow strip along 
the seacoast; for the Israelites were certainly in pos- 
session of the eastern and central portions of Canaan 
at this time, and we find no mention in the Scriptures 
of the presence of Egyptian garrisons or officials. 

The fifth king, Ramesses X, like his predecessor, 
seems to have been one of the kings mentioned by 
Diodorus, who spent their lives in idleness, pleasures, 
and luxurious Hving. The monuments, therefore, 
have little to report about him, but they mention the 
first, sixth, and eighth years of his reign. He con- 



470 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

structed a tomb in the Biban-el-moluk, which is now 
badly ruined, an obelisk in Bologna bears his name, 
and an ostracon in the British Museum shows his 
cartouche repeated three times. 

The sixth king, Ramesses IX, has been suffi- 
ciently mentioned as "King Nile." His tomb ac- 
cords well with his long reign of thirty-nine years; 
for it is large and of fine workmanship, and deco- 
rated with important astronomical representations. 
Were it not for two vases, bearing the name of Ram- 
esses XI, in connection with an Apis-bull, which 
were found in the *'Serapeum" by Mariette, we would 
know absolutely nothing about the last king of this 
dynasty, so far as the monuments are concerned. 

Much has been written about the supposed 
usurpation of the crown by the kings of the Twenty- 
first Dynasty, but no evidence of such usurpation has 
ever been found. The reigns of these kings average 
about twenty-eight years, but they no longer display 
the energy and ability which made the names of Ram- 
esses II and Ramesses III so celebrated. 

It is possible that the Ramessides went down be- 
fore the growing power of the Ethiopian kingdom. 
We shall have more to say about this in the following 
chapters. 

TWENTY-FIRST DYNASTY OF SEVEN TAN- 
ITE KINGS 

The Lists of the Twenty-first Dynasty have come 
down to us almost unchanged. The List of Euse- 
bius has reached us intact, the Armenian Version and 



History of Ancient Egypt 



471 



Syncellus agreeing throughout. The Hsts are as fol- 


lows : 

Africanus. 


Eusebius. 


I. Smendis 26 years 


I. Smendis, . . . .26 years 


2. Psusennes, ... 46 " 


2. Psusennes, . . 


41 " 


3. Nephercheres, . 4 " 


\ Nephercheres, 


4 " 


4. Amenophthis, . 9 " 


4. Amenophthis, 


9 " 


5. Osochor, .... 6 " 


5. Osochor, . . . 


6 " 


6. Psinaches, . , . 9 " 


6. Psinaches, . . 


9 " 


7. Psusennes, . . . I4(?) " 


7. Psusennes, . • 


35 " 



Total, 



130 



Total. 



130 



The separate numbers of Eusebius still foot up 
the required total of one hundred and thirty years. 
The last reign of Africanus is an evident mistake, 
owing to the epoch-reign of the first Psusennes. 

Before we take up the separate reigns, we wish 
to call attention to the pseudo-Sothis List. The blank 
left by the Twentieth Dynasty was filled out as fol- 
lows : 

59. Athothis, who is also Psusanos, 28 years 

60. Kenkenes, 39 " 

61. Uennephis, 42 " 

62. Susakeim, 34 " 

These are the names of four successive epoch-kings. 

"Athothis, who is also Psusanus," with a reign 
of twenty-eight years, is one of the shrewdest com- 
binations of the forger of this list. The real Atho- 
this, that is, the first king of the Twentieth Dynasty, 
who reigned twenty-nine years after the era 1324 
B. C, had been removed to a safe place, and the list 
had been so manipulated that the false Athothis stood 
at A. M. 4369, or 1 131 B. C. 

The forger was well aware that this date was 



472 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

eight years after the beginning of the Twenty-first 
Dynasty. Now it happened that Psusanos I was the 
epoch-king of Athyr, 1084 B. C, twenty-eight years 
and X months of his reign lying before, and thirteen 
years and x months after this epoch. Athoris 
{Hait-har-i), therefore, might have forty-two, twenty- 
eight, or fourteen years. The proof of this can be 
found in number 43 of the pseudo-Sothis List, where 
Athoris appears with twenty-nine years (28 years +x 
months). A very slight twist of the pen converted 
Athoris into Athothis, who received twenty-eight in- 
stead of twenty-nine years, and was identified with 
Psusanos I instead of Ramesses. 

Kenkenes is one of the epoch-titles of King Nile, 
but he has the full thirty-nine years of Ramesse-Ior- 
basse. 

Uennephis has forty-two years, the full reign of 
Psusanos I. We have already explained how Uon- 
nofer, or Uen-nephis, came to serve as an epoch-title 
for the month of Hathor. We shall have occasion 
to comment on Susakeim, that is, Usarkon, in the 
next dynasty. 

The Twentieth Dynasty came to a close in the 
year 1139 B. C. Beginning at this date, which is 
absolute, we have the following result : 

Beginning of Dynasty, 1139B. C. 

Smendis 26 

1113 B. C. 
Psusanos T, before epoch (28), 29 

Epoch of Athyr, 1084 B. C. 

Psusanos I, after epoch {14), 13 

1071 B. C. 



HiSTOR Y OF Ancient Eg ypt 473 

If the reigns, as given by Africanus and Eusebius, 
had not been reduced to years, the Sothiac division 
of the reign of Psusanos I would exactly coincide 
with the epoch. In this case, twenty-eight years be- 
fore, and fourteen years after, the epoch, might be 
as correct as twenty-nine and thirteen. Some one, 
by mistake, has inserted these fourteen years of 
Psusanos I in the place of the thirty-five years of 
Psusanos II, in the List of Africanus, thus affording 
us an additional proof of the absolute correctness of 
Manetho's List. The reader will now understand why 
Athothis, that is, Athoris, with twenty-eight or 
twenty-nine years before the epoch 1084 B. C, was 
also called Psusanos. 

The ''great city," Thebes, after being the imperial 
capital for nearly seven hundred years, was suddenly 
and unaccountably eclipsed at the end of the Twen- 
tieth Dynasty. How and why this occurred, we have 
not yet discovered. The kings of the Twenty-first 
Dynasty were of Tanis, the Zoan of the Bible, and the 
monuments show that this city, once a favorite re- 
sort of the Hyksos, was, in fact, the capital during the 
one hundred and thirty years of this dynasty. 

The first king of this dynasty is generally called 
Hir-har and Sa-amen. I have shown that the sparrow- 
hawk above the sickle of the moon is not Mehf, but 
Menthu, for the first planet above the moon is Mars, or 
Menthu. I do not believe that the sparrow-hawk below 
the sign for heaven can be read Pe-har or Hir-har, 
but that it is a compound sign like the one for 
Menthu just mentioned. When Smendes mounted the 



474 ^ Self- Verifying Chronological 

throne, 1139 B. C, Horus was below the horizon in 
the Sothiac year; for Sothis rose on the first day of 
Athyr about 1084 B. C, or fifty-five years thereafter. 
All attempts to derive Smendes from Sa-amen have 
proved failures, and these failures have led the latest 
historian of ancient Egypt into the error of supposing 
that there were two dynasties ruling at this time, one 
at Tanis; the other, the so-called priest-kings, at 
Thebes. There is no doubt, however, that the 
Twenty-first Dynasty of Tanis ruled over all Egypt. 
Recent excavations at Tanis have shown that 
Smendes, who called himself Mer-amen at Thebes, 
was sometimes called Mer-menthu at Tanis. This dis- 
covery, it seems to me, explains the origin of the 
name Smendes, which has vexed scholars for so many 
years, for Smendes is the correct Greek form of Sa- 
menthu. 

Pliny ascribes an obelisk to Zmante, which ap- 
pears to be another form of Smendes. This view 
is fortified by the fact that this king caused his names 
to be engraved on the two obelisks of Heliopolis 
which were taken to Alexandria, and thence to Lon- 
don and New York. When the obelisk was pointed 
out to Pliny, the name and titles of Sa-amen led the 
guide to ascribe its erection to this king, who was 
called S'menthe or S^monthe. Ismande is a modifica- 
tion of Zmante, analagous to Isment, Esneh, etc. 
Did not Har-menthu become Hermonthis? On the 
other hand, it is barely possible that the present form 
of the name in the lists is due to the forger of the 
pseudo-Sothis List. After the four epoch-kings just 



History of Ancient Egypt 475 

mentioned we find, instead of Smendes, the following 
series : 

63. Psuenos, 25 years 

64. Ammenophis, 9 " 

65. Nepbercheres, 6 " 

66. Saites (?), 15 " 

67. Psinaches, 9 *' 

When we compare this list with Africanus and 
Eusebius, the reign of Psuenos seems to correspond 
to that of Smendes, who may have reigned between 
twenty-five and twenty-six years. The name Pa- 
notem or Pa-nozem, "The Gentle One," is derived 
from a title of Hathor, who became the tutelar deity 
in 1084 B. C. Pa-anchi, "The Living One," a title 
of Isis, is now Psinaches, from Phianches {Ps for Ph), 
and it is probable that Psuenos and Psusennes are de- 
rived from Phunesemes (again Ps for Ph) influenced 
by Psusannos (P'sn-cha-nu-t). We are accustomed to 
the form Sa-amen, but it may have been Amen-sa, or 
Amenses. We have already noticed the adroit com- 
bination "No. 55 Amenses, who is also Ammenemes, 
twenty-six years," of the pseudo-Sothis List. Un- 
doubtedly this was the first reign of the Twenty-first 
Dynasty transferred to the Nineteenth Dynasty, and 
identified with the reigns of Amenephthis and Amen- 
emes. Now what is No. 57 "Amendes," with twenty- 
seven years, but a slightly changed Amenses? It 
is but one step from Amendes to Smendes. The reign 
of Psusanos, Manetho's Psusennes, had been used, 
as Athoris, Athothis, and Uennephis, to "pad" other 
portions of the false list, and we need not be surprised 
to find it entirely wanting in the above list of the kings 



476 A Self-Verifying Chronological 

of the Twenty-first Dynasty. We shall see, in the 
next chapter, how Usarkon II, who was the epoch-^ 
king of Choiahk 946 B. C, and who was similarly 
used under the name of "Susakeim," was eliminated 
from the Lists of Africanus and Eusebius, and finally 
disposed of. 

Brugsch gives an excellent translation of an in- 
scription, dated in the twenty-fifth year of this king, 
which contains an important ''double date," to wit, 
"On the fourth intercalary day, the day of the birth- 
day feast of Isis, at the same time as the feast of Amen 
on the new year." 

Assuming that the twenty-fifth year applies to 
Psusennes I, and that this king had reigned twenty- 
five years at the time mentioned, Sirius rose heliacally 
on the 30th day of Paophi, and new year of the vague 
year coincided with the fifth intercalary day of the 
fixed year; hence the "birthday feast of Isis" and 
the "feast of Amen on the new year" were celebrated 
at the same time, proving that both years were used 
in fixing the feasts. In order to make the coincidence 
mathematically perfect, the feast of the new year, or 
the heliacal rising of Sothis, should have coincided 
with the first day of Thoth of the fixed year; but we 
are merely dealing with the celebration of festivals 
which lasted several days, and, therefore, overlapped. 
First, there was the birthday feast of Isis on the fourth 
intercalary day; then, the new year; and, lastly, the 
feast of Hathor. 

Smendes claims that he maintained the boundaries 
of the empire, punished its enemies, and received 



History of Ancient Egypt 477 

tribute from the princes of Rittennu (Iltaiiu) or Syria. 
The kings of the Twentieth Dynasty, as we have seen, 
held the seacoast, or western portion of Canaan, and 
exacted tribute from the kings of Naharuna (Na-iar- 
u-na, "Nile-land") and adjoining countries. Was this 
the reason the Israelites were not able to take the 
western portion of Canaan? 

But during the reign of Amenses or Smendes, 
Tiglath Pileser (Takeloth Pal-assur) conquered Naha- 
runa and the adjoining countries to the Gulf of Isken- 
derun on the Mediterranean — that is, territory which 
had been tributary to the kings of Egypt — but we 
find no mention of Egyptian interference in the annals 
of the Assyrian monarch. The question of Ethiopian 
supremacy over Egypt will be considered in the next 
chapter. The kings of the Twenty-second Dynasty 
no longer bear Egyptian names, but purely Cushite 
or Ethiopian names, such as Nimroth, Takeloth, 
O-sarkon, and Sheshonk, alternate from the begin- 
ning to the end of the dynasty. After one hundred 
and thirty years of Cushite supremacy under native 
Egyptian kings, who were purposely placed near the 
eastern border of the Delta, a line of Cushite rulers 
mount the throne as Egyptian Pharaohs, and govern 
the country, subject to the great Ethiopian kingdom, 
for two hundred and twenty years. 

TW^ENTY-SECOND DYNASTY OF NINE BU- 
BASTITE KINGS 

The lists of the Twenty-second Dynasty, in their 

present form, contain but a fragment of Manetho's 

original list. There were nine kings in this dynasty, 



478 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

and they reigned altogether two hundred and twenty 
years — that is, from 1009 B. C. to 789 B. C. We will 
now give the present lists : 



Africanus. 

Sesogchis, ... 21 years 
Osorthon, ... 15 " 



Eusebius. 




I. Sesonchosis, . 


21 years 


2. Osorthon, . . 


15 •' 


3. Takelothis, . 


13 " 



"Three others," 25 " 

Takelothis. ... 13 " 

"Three others," 42 " 

Total, ... 120 « Total, .... 49 



A more instructive example of the way in which 
the Manethonian Lists have been corrupted and falsi- 
fied can not be found. The present List of Africanus 
foots up one hundred and sixteen years; but the total 
is still one hundred and twenty. After my initial dis- 
covery that Manetho's three books were arranged 
according to Sothiac Eras, I soon noticed that the 
original total of this dynasty had been two hundred 
and twenty years, but had been changed to one hun- 
dred and twenty years, because the list, as altered, 
footed up one hundred and sixteen only, and two 
hundred and twenty, therefore, appeared to be a pal- 
pable error. It then became evident that the third and 
fifth numbers assigned to the two groups of three 
unnamed kings, in each instance, represent the reign 
of one king only; and it did not take me long (guided 
by the monuments) to discover that the reign of 
twenty-five years belonged to the fifth king, and that 
of forty-two years to the last king of the dynasty; in 



History of Ancient Egypt 479 

other words, that each of these numbers belonged to 
the last king of each group of three. It was known 
from the Apis-memorials that Sheshonk III, the sev- 
enth king of this dynasty, reigned fifty-three years; 
and the twenty-third year of Osarkon II, the fourth 
king of the dynasty, had been found on an Apis-tablet, 
and his twenty-first year in the "Festival Hall" erected 
by him at Bubastis. Aided by these dates, I next dis- 
covered that Susakeim, with thirty-four years, of the 
false Sothis List, was Osarkon II, slightly misspelt. 
Lastly, I found that Pa-mvd, the eighth king, was en- 
titled to seventeen years, and with these data suc- 
ceeded in correctly restoring the list. 

There were two Sothiac epochs, to wit : Choiahk, 
964 B. C, and Tybi, 844 B. C, in the period of two 
hundred and twenty years covered by this dynasty, 
and the division of the epoch-reigns by these epochs 
proves that the restoration is astronomically correct. 

Manetho's totals of the Twentieth and Twenty- 
first Dynasties, one hundred and eighty-five and one 
hundred and thirty years respectively, lead us un- 
erringly from the era 1324 B. C. to the year 1009 
B. C. Proceeding from this date, we have : 

Beginning of Twenty-second Djmasty, .... 1009 B. C. 

1. Sesonchis (Sheshonk I), 21 

988 B. C. 

2. Osorthon (Usarkon I), 15 

973 B. C. 

3. Takelothis (Takeloth I, less than one year), . . o 

"973 B. C. 

4. Osorkon II, before epoch, 9 

Kpoch of Choiahk, 964 B. C. 



480 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

Brought forward^ 964 B. C. 

Osorkon II, after epoch, 25 

939 B. C. 

5. Sesonchis II, 25 

914 B. C. 

6. Takelotliis II, 13 

901 B. C. 

7. Sheshonk III, 53 

"848 B.C. 
- 8. Pa-mui, before epoch, 4 

Epoch of Tybi 844 B. C. 

Fa-mui, after epoch, 13 

"S^i B. C. 
9. Sheshonk IV, ... 42 

End of Dynasty, 789 B. C. 

It can do no harm to repeat that Manetho entered 
the epoch-reign of Osarkon II in some such fashion 
as this: 

Osarkon (Susakeim), entire reign, 34 years 

Osarkon, before epoch, as Herakles (?), ..... 9 " 
Osarkon, after epoch, as Petubastes, 25 " 

Eusebius entered both of these fragments in his 
Twenty-third Dynasty, where they appear, as follows : 

Petubastes, 25 years 

Osorthon, the Egyptian Herakles, 9 " 

The name of the next epoch-king, Pa-mui (The 
Male Cat) is in itself an epoch-title of the month of 
Tybi. The author of the false Sothis List used the 
fragments of this reign to partly fill out the interval 
of fifty-one years between the reigns of Menophthah 
and Set-necht (Kertos), where they appear as "No. 51 



History of Ancient Egypt 48 i 

Psammuthis, thirteen years," and "No. 52 .... four 
years." It seems that this king had no additional 
epoch-title to insert, so that the name belonging to 
the four years had to be left blank. Manetho's ''Pa- 
miiis^ or "P'sa-muis/' was mistaken for 'Tsamuthis," 
an epoch-title closely resembling it. We have already 
mentioned a most important and interesting synchro- 
nism between the reigns of Solomon and Shishak, 
the first king of this dynasty. This is also the first 
instance in which an Egyptian king is referred to by 
name in the Scriptures. As Solomon began to build 
the Temple in his fourth year, we have placed his 
accession at 1014 B. C, just five years before the 
beginning of this dynasty. We are told that Jero- 
boam remained in Egypt until the death of Solomon, 
which occurred about 992 B. C. 

In the fifth year of the reign of Rehoboam, the son 
and successor of Solomon, Shishak, king of Egypt, 
came up against Jerusalem; and he took away the 
treasures of the house of the Lord and the king's 
treasures, and carried them oflf; as also the shields of 
gold which Solomon had made. We are also told that 
Shishak had 1,200 chariots, 60,000 horsemen, besides 
soldiers without number, and that the people that 
came with him out of Egypt were Libyans, Ethi- 
opians, etc. Josephus says he had 1,200 chariots, 
60,000 horsemen, and 400,000 footmen, the greater 
part of them Libyans and Ethiopians. He also says 
that Shishak took the strongest cities of Rehoboam's 
kingdom, and finally Jerusalem also, without fighting. 
As the reign of Sheshonk continued twenty-one years, 
31 



482 A Self-Verifying Chronological 

this conquest of Judah must be placed near the end 
of his reign, or about 988 B. C. An account of this 
expedition was engraved on the south wall of the 
Temple of Amen at Thebes, to the east of the room 
called the "Hall of the Bubastids." The spectator be- 
holds the Egyptian king smiting the Jews. In the 
long rows of names, each of which is inclosed in a 
shield, we find that of "Judah-melek" The Egyptian 
scribe did not attempt to translate "King of Judah" 
into his own language, or to change the title to 
Melek-Judah, in order to make it conform to the rules 
of Egyptian grammar; but he faithfully transcribed 
it as he found it, ''Judah-meleky It is by no means 
the name of a town. The determinative for a foreign 
land (sat) applies to Judah, and not to melek (king). 
The features of Judah-melek are typically Jewish — 
so perfectly so, in fact, that no one could possibly 
mistake his nationality. The conquered people are 
called 'Aamu and Fenechu — that is, Canaanites and 
Jews — showing that the descendants of the 'Aamu and 
the Jews (who are here confounded with the Phoe- 
nicians) were still dwelling side by side. 

Sheshonk I built the hall at Karnak now known 
as the "Hall of the Bubastids," and the kings of this 
dynasty have perpetuated their names in it. The 
architect of this work has left an inscription in the 
quarries of Silsilis, which is dated in the twenty-first 
year of this king, informing us that his majesty had 
issued an order to hew the best stone of Silsilis, in 
order to make many and great monuments for the 
temple of his glorious father, Amen-ra, the lord of 



History of Ancient Egypt 4b 3 

Thebes, and to build a great temple-gate and a fes- 
tival-hall for his father, Amen-ra, the king of the gods, 
and to inclose the house of the god with a thick wall. 
The architect assures his lord that he will not sleep 
by night nor slumber by day, but that the building 
shall go on uninterruptedly without rest or pause. 
The rich booty carried away from Jerusalem, and the 
desire to commemorate his victories, no doubt stimu- 
lated Sheshonk to undertake these works in the last 
year of his reign; for it is evident that the architect 
had been enjoined to use all possible expedition in 
completing the monuments. 

Sheshonk no doubt regarded the powerful king- 
dom organized by Solomon with distrust and appre- 
hension, and for this reason encouraged the preten- 
sions of Jeroboam. A divided kingdom, while it still 
served as a bulwark against the rising power of the 
Assyrians, could not be dangerous to Egypt. 

We will now examine another synchronism. Jo- 
sephus tells us that Rehoboam reigned thirteen years 
after the capture of Jerusalem. His son, Abijah, who 
obtained the great victory over the Israelites, reigned 
after him about three years. Asa, the ''Good King," 
under whom the country of the Israelites enjoyed 
peace for ten years, met and defeated Zarah, ''King of 
Ethiopia." "When he had already reigned ten years, 
Zarah, King of Ethiopia, made an expedition with a 
great army of 900,000 footmen, 100,000 horsemen, 
and 300 chariots, and came as far as Mareshah, a city 
that belonged to the tribe of Judah." (Antiq. VIII, 
12, I.) The Scriptures, in their present form, call 



484 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

him "Zarah, the Ethiopian," and estimate his army at 
1,000,000 men and 300 chariots. We are told that 
the Lord terrified the "Ethiopians,'' and they fled; 
but in another chapter they are called "Ethiopians 
and Libyans." As this invasion occurred twenty-six 
years after the capture of Jerusalem by Sheshonk, or 
962 B. C, the question arises. Was "Zarah, the Ethi- 
opian," Osarkon II, King of Egypt, who continued 
to reign eight years after the defeat of the Ethiopian 
and Libyan army? 

All will admit that some great change, or revolu- 
tion, took place in Egypt when, at the beginning of 
the Twenty-first Dynasty, the capital and center of 
power were transferred from Thebes to Tanis. Why 
should the kings of the Twenty-first Dynasty have left 
the glorious capital, the "hundred-gated Thebes," in 
the "Land of the South," to take up their residence 
in the northeast angle of the Delta? Is it not remark- 
able that they seldom ventured to inclose their names 
and titles in the royal ovals? We are face to face with 
an effect which is exceptional in the annals of Egyp- 
tian history. Where and what was the disturbing 
cause? 

The names of the royal family of the Twenty- 
second Dynasty are not Egyptian. Every Egyptol- 
ogist will admit this. We find Egyptologists divided 
into two camps; one contending that the names are 
Assyrian, the other that they are Libyan. We are 
constrained to ask. What do these learned gentlemen 
mean by the terms "Assyrian" and "Libyan?" Nim- 
rod, or Nimroth, Sargon, Sarkon, Sarkon-a, or 



History of Ancient Egypt 485 

O-sarkon, Tiglath, or Takeloth, and I might add 
Sheshonk also, are neither Assyrian nor Libyan 
names, but Cushite, or Ethiopian. The Asiatic, or 
great Tartar-MongoHan race was known to the Egyp- 
tians as 'Aam or Ham. Now, Moses, who uses the 
Egyptian race names, tells us expressly that Cush 
(the Babylonians and Ethiopians), and Canaan (the 
descendants of the Hyksos invaders), were "sons" of 
this Ham. Wherever the Greeks use the term 
''Ethiopian," the native monuments have the corre- 
sponding Cush, Kash, Kashi, Kosse, Kossaeans, etc. 
The Babylonian kingdom was founded by Nimrod, 
or Nimroth, who was a "son of Cush," and therefore 
an Ethiopian. Assur, on the contrary, who went 
forth from Babylonia and founded the Assyrian king- 
dom, was a "son of Shem." I can not sufficiently 
emphasize the important fact that the native Egyp- 
tians, the authors of the matchless civilization of an- 
cient Egypt, were not Hamites, but belonged to what 
we now call the "Japhetic" race. Why, I ask, have 
modern Egyptologists disregarded the clear and defi- 
nite statements of the Bible respecting the race of 
Sheshonk I and Osarkon H? The army of the first 
was composed mostly of Ethiopians and Libyans, 
while the second is expressly called "the Ethiopian," 
and his army "Ethiopians." We are told that the 
Queen of Sheba (called Queen of Egypt and Ethi- 
opia" by Josephus), having heard of the fame of 
Solomon, came to Jerusalem with a great train and 
camels that carried spices, and an immense quantity 
of gold and precious stones. The camels and spices 



486 A Self-Verifying Chronological 

brought by the queen point to Arabia and the land 
of Puon-et as her home, and yet Josephus must have 
found some authority for describing her as "Queen of 
Egypt and Ethiopia." 

A long inscription, dated in the twenty-first year 
of Pi-anchi, king of Ethiopia, shows that during the 
reign of Osorkon, the second king of the Twenty- 
third Dynasty, that is, about 749 B. C, Lower Egypt 
had long been a dependency of Ethiopia. The 
greater part of Upper Egypt had been incorporated 
in the Ethiopian kingdom. Lower Egypt was gov- 
erned by numerous petty kings and rulers, all of 
whom were subject to Pi-anchi. Now there is nothing 
in the lists to indicate that Egypt was subject to 
Ethiopia at this time, and the fact was unknown un- 
til the inscription of Pianchi, recently discovered, 
revealed it. Notwithstanding the length and explicit- 
ness of the inscription, it contains no allusion to an 
Ethiopian conquest of Egypt, showing that it oc- 
curred long before the beginning of Pi-anchi' s reign. 
It must have occurred at the end of the Twentieth 
Dynasty. The banishment of thousands of Thebans 
to the Great Oasis was the result of the fall of the 
great line of the Ramessids. 

We have seen that Menophthah retired to 
Ethiopia, and that the king of Ethiopia placed a great 
army at the border of Egypt to protect the voluntary 
exiles. It thus appears that as early as 1488 B. C. 
Ethiopia had grown to be more powerful than Egypt. 
The government was patterned after that of Egypt, 
and Pianchi manifested himself as a devout worshiper 



History of Ancient Egypt 487 

of the Egyptian divinities, notably of Amen. The 
fact that the kings of the Twenty-first Dynasty erected 
monuments and inscribed their names and titles in 
Thebes and other cities in Egypt is not inconsistent 
with Ethiopian domination. On the contray, the ex- 
ceptional fact that they generally entitled themselves 
''First Priest of Amen," instead of "King of Egypt," 
demonstrates that they were tributary to some higher 
power. The civilization of Ethiopia was altogether 
Egyptian. The names and titles of Pi-anchi, the 
Ethiopian, differ in no respect from those of a full- 
fledged Pharaoh; his name Pi-anchi, "Living One,'' 
is pure Egyptian, and he honors in the most im- 
pressive manner the so-called gods of Egypt, but 
particularly Amen of Thebes. It Is undeniable that the 
Thebaid had become an integral part of his kingdom. 
Lower Egypt and the Heptanomis were parceled out 
among numerous petty rulers, who, although locally 
independent, were tributary to the great king of 
Ethiopia. Thus there could not have been any rad- 
ical cause for enmity, or antagonism, between the 
Ethiopians and Egyptians such as that which existed 
between the latter and the Assyrians. 

From the earliest times the Egyptians recruited 
their fighting men from among the Masai, who an- 
ciently inhabited the region afterwards known as 
Nubia. The name for soldier, down to the Coptic, 
was "Matoi" or Masai. After the Masai had been 
supplanted by the Cushites, who seem to have crossed 
over from the shores of the Red Sea to the upper Nile 
valley, the army was made up of Ethiopians and 



48B A Self- Verifying Chronological 

Libyans. At first these troops were drilled and offi- 
cered by native Egyptians, but, under the weak and 
effeminate kings of the Twenty-first Dynasty, Ethi- 
opians were intrusted with these positions. Thus 
the grandfather of Sheshonk I bore the title of Ur- 
od en maty "Great Prince of the Matoi," maty in my 
opinion, being an abbreviation of "matoi,'' mazai, 
as long ago demonstrated by E. de Ronge. In the 
Twenty-first Dynasty the office of Ur-od seems to 
have been more important than that of nominal king 
at Tanis or high-priest of Amen. It was the uni- 
versal custom at this time to govern conquered coun- 
tries through native kings. Under Pianchi we find 
Tef-nechty king of Memphis and Sais, Osarkon, king 
of Tanis, etc. Under Shabakon we find Zet, the 
priest of Ptah, as local king, etc. Under the As- 
syrians Nechao and others appear as kings. Why 
should not the kings of the Twenty-first Dynasty 
have been subject to the great ruler of the Cushites? 
The Cushite kings of the Twenty-second Dynasty, 
by reason of their nationality, enjoyed greater inde- 
pendence, and were allowed to exercise the author- 
ity of kings in Egypt, for we can hardly assume that 
they themselves were the Ethiopian sovereigns. The 
Israelites of the days of King Asa knew the differ- 
ence between Egyptians and Cushites. The de- 
scription of Zarach, or Osarkon II, as "King of 
Ethiopia" and "the Ethiopian" must be regarded as 
decisive until positive negative proof is produced. 

The army of Zarah, like that of Shishak, was com- 
posed of Ethiopians and Libyians; but if he was the 



History of Ancient Egypt 489 

king of an imaginary kingdom of Ethiopia situated 
somewhere in the desert wastes of Arabia, how could 
we account for the Libyan contingent of his army? 

Egypt separated Libya from Arabia, and a power- 
ful kingdom in Egypt, under Osarkon II, who 
reigned at Bubastis, made it impossible for an 
Arabian king to have an army of Libyans. We know 
from the inscriptions and representations placed on 
the walls of the Temple of Karnak by Sheshonk I, 
that he was the Shishak of the Bible. Now, as the 
armies of Shishak and Zarah were each composed of 
^'Libyans and Ethiopians," we are forced to the con- 
clusion that Zarah was Osarkon II. 

Before he became king, Sheshonk I was the Ur-oa 
of this army of Libyan and Ethiopian mercenaries. 

There seems to be a consensus of opinion among 
Egyptologists that the title Pharaoh is derived from 
Per-od, "Great House." In fact, in the celebrated 
treaty between Ramesses II, king of Egypt, and 
Cheta-sar, king of the Hittites (Land of Cheta), we 
find the following use of the title : 

"Mutet en pa a-nu en het er-da-en Ur-od en Cheta, 
Cheta-sar, an-et-u er Per-od, anch, uza, seneb," etc., 
that is, "Copy of the tablet of silver which the Great 
Prince of Cheta, Chetasar, caused to be brought to 
Pharoah — life, prosperity, and health to him," etc. 
Here Per-od (I have written it in the singular, al- 
though in the original it is dual) is applied to the 
king personally, as evidenced by the formula wish- 
ing him life, health, and prosperity. Now Pharaoh 
seems to be a fair transcription of Perao, as pro- 



490 A Self-Verifying Chronological 

nounced in Lower Egypt, where P, almost invariably, 
became Ph. But in this same treaty the king of the 
Hittites is called pa Ur-od, "the Great Prince." Ur 
is great in the sense of primitive — compare ur-wald 
"primeval forest" — od, in this combination, is an ad- 
jective meaning "great;" hence Brugsch's translation, 
"Great Prince," is correct. 

It is significant that, prior to the Twenty-second 
Dynasty, foreign kings only were called ur-od, or, with 
the definite article, pa ur-od. The Coptic for king is 
"Ero," "Uro" (ur-od), and in the Lower Egyptian 
dialect, Pa-ero, Pa-uro, would become Pha-uro. 

During the Twenty-first Dynasty the commander, 
or general, of the army, which was composed prin- 
cipally of Libyan and Ethiopian mercenaries, bore 
the distinguished title Ur-od, Ur-od en Mashuasha, or 
Ur-od en mat, that is, "Great Prince of the Maxyes," 
etc. Thus Sheshonk, the grandfather of Sheshonk I, 
held the office of Ur-od, or Commander of the army. 
It might be said that he was "the Ur-oa," or Pharaoh, 
and, in fact, he was so powerful and influential that 
Meht-en-usech, the daughter of the king of Egypt, was 
bestowed upon him in marriage. Nimroth (Nimrod), 
the son of this union, was buried with regal honors 
at Abydus. 

The office of Ur-od was hereditary, for the ances- 
tors of Sheshonk I, who founded the Twenty-second 
Dynasty, held it for five or six generations. Now, if 
Pharaoh is derived from Pha-ur-oa, then Sheshonk I 
was the first king of Egypt who ever bore this title. 
Josephus (Antiq. VIII, 6, 2) tells us that "Pharaoh 



History of Ancient Egypt 491 

in the Egyptian tongue, signifies a king," and under- 
takes, in a mystical and incomprehensive manner, to 
explain why all the kings of Egypt, from Menes, who 
built Memphis, until Solomon, were called Pharaohs, 
and yet took the name from one Pharaoh that lived 
after the kings of that interval. He closes the pre- 
tended explanation with these words: "As for my- 
self, I have discovered from our own books that after 
Pharaoh, the father-in-law of Solomon, no other king 
of Egypt did any longer use that name; . . . but 
I have now made mention of these things that I may 
prove that our books and those of the Egyptians 
agree together in many things." 

Josephus confessed in another place that he could 
not understand the Egyptian language; hence the 
books of the Egyptians referred to were Manetho's 
History, which was published in Greek. Is it not 
evident that Josephus found some mention of the 
title Pa-ur-od in his copy of, or extract from, Man- 
etho, and of the fact that Sheshonk I, the successor 
of Psusanos H, who was Solomon's father-in law, 
was the first king of Egypt who bore the title? Why 
then does he endeavor to mystify the facts? In 
which of the sacred books of the Israelites did he dis- 
cover that, after Pharaoh, the father-in-law of Solo- 
mon, no other king of Egypt used that name? Why 
did he consider it necessary to explain how all the 
kings prior to Solomon came to bear a title which 
was first borne by Sheshonk I, if he had not dis- 
covered the statement of the fact in the books of the 
Egyptians? Must we not infer that Manetho derived 



492 A Self-Verifying Chronological 

Pharaoh from Pha-ur-o, and explained that it meant 
"The King?" But it would carry me beyond the 
limits of this work to pursue the interesting subject 
farther. 

TW^ENTY-THIRD DYNASTY OF THREE 
TANITE KINGS 

The Twenty-third Dynasty of three Tanite kings, 
according to the List of Africanus, omitting the reign 
of Zet, or Saites, which belongs to the Twenty-fourth 
Dynasty, was as follows : 





Africanus. 




Eusebius. 


I. 


Petubastis, . . 


. 40 years 


I. Petubastis, ... 25 years 


2. 


Osorchon, . . 


. 8 " 


2. Osorthon, ... 9 " 


3. 


Psammus, . . 


. 10 " 


3. Psammus, ... 10 " 



Total, .... 59 " Total, .... 44 " 

A fourth king, Zet, with thirty-four or thirty-one 
years, has been added to the List of Africanus, and 
the total increased from fifty-nine to eighty-nine 
years. We have already called attention to the fact 
that the list used by Eusebius had been changed by 
the early Christian chronographers, who saw fit to in- 
sert epoch-reigns in the place of actual reigns. Thus 
Petsibastis, the first king of this dynasty, in whose 
reign (789 to 749 B. C.) the first Olympiad was 
celebrated {yy6 B. C), reigned forty years. Euse- 
bius has Petubastis with twenty-five years, which is 
the epoch-reign of Osorkon II, in the place of Petsi- 
bastis (Pa-tu-sa-bastif, *^The Gift of the Son of Bast"), 
and omits the synchronism between his reign and the 
first Olympiad. Again Osorthon, "whom the Egyp- 
tians call Herakles," with nine years, is plainly and 



History of Ancient Egypt 493 

unmistakably the first part of the reign of Osorkon II 
Sa-hus-it, the nine years in the month of Athyr. Of 
course, the petty king Osorkon, of the Twenty-third 
Dynasty, who governed a district or two in the Delta 
at the pleasure of Pi-anchi, the Ethiopian king, was 
not called Herakles by the Egyptians nor Manetho 
either. When, on the first day of Choiahk, 964 B. C, 
of the Sothiac year, Horus crossed the equator to 
become the "Powerful Bull" (ka-necht), Manetho com- 
pared him, not Osorkon II, to the Grecian Herakles. 
Here again we see that Egyptian science was cosmic, 
and that the Sothiac symbols and terminology were 
based upon natural phenomena affecting our globe as 
an entirety, and not Egypt alone. 

Thus, when Horus crossed the equator at the ver- 
nal equinox, he was regarded as the generator of 
vegetable Hfe in the upper hemisphere. Hence we find 
such symbols as Bastit, originally a vegetable offer- 
ing, and Min, or Pan, the symbols or symbolical per- 
sonations of the generative principle in nature, pre- 
siding over the month of Choiahk. The remark iden- 
tifying Osorchon HI with the Egyptian Hercules, 
that is, the "Powerful Bull," was not originally In 
the List of Africanus, but was afterwards inserted 
there from the List of Eusebius, most probably by 
Syncellus himself. Manetho's numbers place the be- 
ginning of this dynasty at 789 B. C; consequently 
Petsibastis became petty king at Tanis thirteen years 
before the first Olympiad. Manetho's synchronism, 
therefore, is sustained by the well-known date of the 
first Olympiad. 



494 ^ Self-Verifying Chronological 

We have seen that there is nothing in the great 
inscription of Pianchi to even indicate that the numer- 
ous petty kings and rulers named therein had been ap- 
pointed or set up by him. The long reign of Petsi- 
bastis excludes the supposition that he was appointed 
petty king by Pianchi. The expedition commemo- 
rated in the inscription took place in the twenty-first 
year of Pianchi; and placing it as far back in the 
reign of Osorchon III as we possibly can, to wit, in 
his first year, Petsibastis had been on the throne at 
least twenty years when Pianchi became king. Now, 
if Pianchi had conquered Egypt, he would not have 
permitted his opponent, Petsibastis, previous king of 
Egypt, to retain the kingdom. On the contrary, the 
Ethiopian kings gradually, but surely, circumscribed 
and cut down the powers of the Egyptian kings. In 
the Twenty-first Dynasty we find native Egyptian 
kings officiating as high-priests {top-hon-nuter) of 
Amen in Thebes, the army, however, being under the 
control of Cushite officers, Hke Sheshonk and Nim- 
roth, bearing the semi-royal title Ur-oa. In the 
Twenty-second Dynasty we find Egypt governed by 
Cushite kings, whose only title to the throne was de- 
rived from the Egyptian princess Meht-en-usech. 

We do not know how many native princes were al- 
lowed to rule under these, but the Apis-memorials 
show that even as far north as Memphis itself Cush- 
ites exercised the highest priestly functions. In the 
reign of Pianchi, Upper Egypt, from the land of 
Cush to the Heptanomis, had become a part of the 
Ethiopian kingdom, and was governed by the two 



History of Ancient Egypt 495 

commanders of the Ethiopian troops, Paurma and 
Lamiskeni. 

Although Manetho recognized Petsibastis as the 
legitimate king of Egypt, there can be no doubt that 
the district actually governed by him was as limited 
as that ruled over by his successor, Osorchon III. 
The inscription of Pianchi is too lengthy to insert 
in this work, and we will content ourselves with brief 
extracts from it. The reader will find an excellent 
translation of the entire document in the last edition 
of Brugsch's History of Egypt. 

"Messengers came to inform the king that the 
lord of the west country, the great prince of the 
holy city Sais, Tefnecht, had established himself in the 
nome of ... in the city of Xois, in the city 
of Nilopolis, in the city of ... in the city of 
Ain, in the city of Panub (Canopus), and in the city 
of Memphis. He has taken possession of the whole 
west country, from the Mediterranean coast up to the 
boundary city. He is advancing up the river with 
many warriors. The inhabitants of both parts of 
Egypt have joined themselves to him. The princes 
and lords of the city are like dogs at his feet." 

This Tefneckf, who is also called king of Sais and 
Memphis, is certainly the Tephnachthis of Diodorus, 
who was the father of Bokchoris. The real name 
of the latter was Zet, the Sethon of Herodotus. The 
last king of the Twenty-third Dynasty was Psammus, 
whose reign of ten years came to an end 730 B. C. 
This year marks the accession of Shabakon, the 
Ethiopian, as lord of Egypt, and we can now explain 



496 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

why Manetho introduced a new dynasty at this point. 

As Tefnecht was king of Sais and Memphis, lord 
of the west country, prophet of Neith, and the high- 
priest of Ptah, his son Zet, Sethon or Bokchoris, cer- 
tainly inherited the same ofhces. As there was no 
connection between Osorchon III of Tanis and Tef- 
necht of Sais and Memphis, the accession of Zet, un- 
der Shabakon, introduced a new dynasty. 

Tefnecht invested the city of Heracleopolis Magna. 
He let all the princes who acknowledged his power 
abide every one in his own district, as princes and 
kings of the cities. Nimrod, the king of Hermopolis, 
after first demolishing his fortress, to prevent it from 
falling into the hands of Tefnecht, changed his mind, 
threw himself at the feet of Tefnecht, and renounced 
his allegiance to Pianchi. 

When Pianchi received this message, he sent or- 
ders to the princes and the two generals of the army 
above named, who were set over the land of Egypt, 
to hasten to prevent the rebels from arming, and to 
invest and blockade the city of Hermopolis, and to 
fight against it without ceasing. Pianchi then sent 
his warriors to Egypt, enjoining upon them to be 
careful, to avoid the enjoyment of play, and to con- 
fess that Amen sent them. *'The man who despises 
him shall have no strength ; he makes the weak strong, 
and however many there may be of the strong, they 
must fly before the weak." 

The troops, however, prostrated themselves be- 
fore Pianchi, claiming that it was his name that made 
them strong, his wisdom that gave them firmness. 



History of Ancient Egypt 497 

''Does not thy power give us strength and courage? 
Who is Hke unto thee? Thou art the king whose 
hands create victory, a master in the work of war." 
Thus we see that Pianchi, notwithstanding his piety, 
enjoyed the reputation of being a great leader upon 
the field of battle. A great monarch, in the twenty- 
first year of his reign, might ordinarily expect to 
end his days in peace, far from the horrors and alarms 
of the battle-field, but it is evident that the veterans 
who had been led to victory by the aged king in his 
younger days, placed more reliance upon his tried 
generalship than upon the religious ceremonies they 
were to go through at Thebes. With all deference to 
the fealty of the soldiers, we can not help admiring 
the faith of the aged monarch who bore the name of 
*'The Living One," 

TWENTY-FOURTH DYNASTY OF FOUR 
SAITE KINGS 

As we know from Eusebius, Manetho placed the 
Saite and Ethiopian kings in parallel dynasties. Orig- 
inally they stood thus : 

Twenty-fourth Dynasty of Twenty-fifth Dynasty of 

Saite Kings. Ethiopian Kings. 

1. Zet, or Bocchoris, 44 years i. Sabakon, ... 8 years 

2. Tephnachtes, . . 7 " 2. Sebichos, ... 14 " 

3. Necbepsos, . . . 6 " 3. Tarakos, .... 18 " 

4. Necbau I, .... 8 " 4. Tarakos, King of 

Upper Egypt, 25 " 

Total, 65 " Total, .... 65 « 

In the present lists these dynasties were first en- 
tered as consecutive, instead of parallel, and then cut 
down, until now they are hardly recognizable. 
32 



498 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

We have already seen that in the Lists of Afri- 
canus Zet was added to the Twenty-third Dynasty, 
and his forty-four years cut down to thirty-four and 
thirty-one. The Twenty-fourth Dynasty was reduced 
to one king and six years. To understand how this 
was done we must observe the division of Zet's reign 
by the epoch of Am-hir (Mechir) 724 B. C. 

End of Twenty-second Dynasty 730 B. C. 

Zet, or Sethon, before epocli, 6 

Epoch of Amhir, 724 B. C. 

Zet, or Sethon, after epoch, as " Rokchoris," ... 38 

End of Zet's reign, 686 B. C. 

We now find: "Twenty-fourth Dynasty (number 
of kings omitted.) Bokchoris Saites (Set?), six 
years." 

One king alone can not constitute a dynasty. Be- 
sides, the customary total is also wanting. The List 
of Eusebius is like the above, except that Bokchoris 
Saites has forty-four years, followed by "total forty- 
four years." 

No. 74 of the pseudo-Sothis List is "Bokchoris," 
with forty-four years; No. 78, "Amaes," with thirty- 
eight years. At the head of his dynasty Eusebius has 
"Ammeris" {A.mms>-Am-hir-i), with eighteen years. 
Bokchoris, therefore, represents Rohk-ur-i, or Rok- 
choris, with the six years of Zet's reign before the 
epoch, while Amaes, or Ammeris, represents Amiris, 
with the thirty-eight years of Zet's reign after the 
epoch. It has been supposed that Zet's name was 
inserted in the List of Africanus from Herodotus; 



History of Ancient Egypt 499 

but this is an error, for Manetho certainly had him at 
the head of this dynasty of four Saite kings. 

Herodotus introduces this petty king, whom he 
calls Sethon, as the "priest of Vulcan." We learn 
from Diodorus that this king, by him called Bok- 
choris, was the son of Tef-necht, who was also the 
priest of Ptah. In the list of titles given to him in 
Pianchi's inscription, the first is "King of Sais," which 
city was his residence. We have just seen that the 
insurrection led by Tef-necht was unsuccesful, but it 
is evident that he was more powerful and influential 
than his contemporary, Osorkon III, whom Manetho 
recognized as the legitimate king. Bokchoris en- 
joyed a vague reputation for wisdom, although it 
was impossible to tell upon what it was founded, while 
his true personality was hidden under the epoch-title 
Rokchoris. Now, since we know who this king really 
was, it is evident that the providential destruction 
of the army of Sennacherib before Pelusium, com- 
memorated by the celebrated statue of Zet in the 
temple of Ptah, lay at the bottom of it. The suc- 
cessor to this king was also named Tef-necht, which 
confirms the statement of Diodorus, for the kings 
often named their sons after their grandfathers. 

A remark attached to the reign of Sabakon in- 
forms us that he took Bokchoris captive and burned 
him alive. This is the most instructive and amusing 
of the many errors which were made by the redactors 
of Manetho^s Lists. The accession of Sabakon as 
king of Egypt took place in 730 B. C, and as Zet's 
reign begins at the same time, it follows that he was 



500 A Self-Verifying Chronological 

appointed as under-king by Sabakon himself. After 
he had reigned six years, the epoch of Emhir came 
in. This month was one of the "Twins," and was 
called Rohk-ur, or "great heat." 

Manetho certainly mentioned the epoch (724 
B. C.) which fell in the seventh year of Zet's reign, 
and explained the meaning and derivation of the 
epoch-titles Rohk-ur-i and Am-hir-i. 

Rohk-ur-i led to the fable of Rokchoris (not Zet) 
being burnt (combussit) alive. Certain it is that Rok- 
choris reigned thirty-eight years after this "great 
burning," and that the priests of Sais consulted by 
Herodotus knew nothing about it. The mention of 
Sennacherib, king of Assyria, affords us a very im- 
portant synchronism. We know from the "Canon of 
Ptolemy," which is astronomically absolute, that this 
king mounted the throne 704 B. C. Josephus, in 
treating of the destruction of Sennacherib's army, 
before Pelusium, tells us that Sennacherib heard that 
Taraka, king of Ethiopia, was approaching across the 
desert with a large army. Now Sabakon's reign as 
king of Egypt closed ^22 B. C, about the time 
Samaria was captured by Shalmaneser, while the reign 
of Sebichos as king of Egypt closed 708 B. C. Taraka 
was king of all Egypt from 708 B. C. to 690 B. C, 
when he was defeated and driven out of Lower Egypt 
by the Assyrians, although he was recognized as king 
of Upper Egypt for twenty-five years longer, that is, 
from 690 B. C. to 665 B. C. Sennacherib reigned 
from 704 B. C. to 680 B. C, so that his reign and the 
reign of Zet were contemporary for eighteen years. 



History of Ancient Egypt 501 

The confusion in which modern Egyptologists find 
themselves involved as to these Ethiopian kings is 
owing, in part, to the present condition of the lists, 
which place these kings between Bokchoris and Teph- 
nachtis, and in part to their failure to take into con- 
sideration the well-known fact that Manetho's Lists 
contain kings of Egypt, not of Ethiopia. 

Psammetichos I, ignoring the Assyrians and the 
petty kings established by them, claimed to be the 
successor of Taraka, king of Upper Egypt. An Apis- 
tablet, heretofore misunderstood, dated in the twen- 
tieth year of Psammetichos I, commemorates the 
death and burial of an Apis-bull born in the twenty- 
sixth year of the king of Upper Egypt, Taraka, and 
proves that the latter continued to reign as king of 
Upper Egypt twenty-five years after he had been ex- 
pelled from Lower Egypt by the Assyrians. 

The distinction is a fine one, but Manetho did 
not recognize any one as "king of Egypt" unless he 
held, or asserted a potential right to, Memphis, the 
ancient capital. Now as Tephnachtis, Nechepsos, 
and Nechao I were princes of Sais and Memphis, just 
as Zet had been, Manetho recognized them as the 
legitimate kings, and he was warranted in doing this; 
for, as we have just seen, Psammetichos I was care- 
ful to mention Taraka as king of Upper Egypt only. 
An exceptionally favorable correlation of dates and 
events enables me to fix the date of the accession of 
Hosea, king of Israel, at 730 B. C, or the beginning 
of Manetho's Twenty-fourth and Twenty-fifth Dy- 
nasties. By the aid of the "Canon of Ptolemy" we 



502 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

find that Shalmaneser, king of Assyria, reigned from 
726 to 721 B. C. It will be seen that Shalmaneser 
began to reign in the fifth year of Hosea. We will 
assume that it was in this year that Shalmaneser came 
up, and Hosea became his servant, and paid him 
tribute. After this, Hosea sent messengers to Saba- 
kon, the king of Egypt, that he might not pay tribute 
to the king of the Assyrians. When Shalmaneser 
learned that Hosea was endeavoring to rebel, he be- 
sieged him, bound him, and cast him into prison; 
and going up to Samaria, he besieged it three years. 
And in the ninth year of Hosea he took Samaria, 
and carried the Israelites away to Assyria, and placed 
them in Medea. This catastrophe took place about 
y22 B. C, or one year before the accession of Sarkon. 
This may be in the nature of an agreeable surprise 
to those Assyriologists who have concluded that it 
was not Shalmaneser, but Sarkon, who captured 
Samaria. These synchronisms, when supported by 
absolute dates like those found in the "Canon of 
Ptolemy," are crucial tests when applied to the sys- 
tem of chronology transmitted to us by Manetho. 
In this instance the conditions are critical; for Saba- 
kon's reign extended from 730 B. C. to ^22 B. C, 
leaving a very small margin indeed. Shalmaneser 
mounted the throne 726 B. C, or four years only 
before the end of Sabakon's reign; and when we take 
into consideration that the siege of Samaria lasted 
two or three years, we find that Hosea sent his mes- 
sengers to Sabakon about 724 B. C. According to 
Manetho, Sabakon was king of Egypt in this year, 



History of Ancient Egypt 503 

and his system bears this test, just as it does every 
other. Although Shabaka, the king of Egypt, did 
not come to the assistance of Hosea when Samaria 
was taken by Shalmaneser, his son Shabataka formed 
a league with the Philistines, and measured arms with 
Sarkona, the successor of Shalmaneser on the throne 
of Assyria, a few years afterwards. Manetho calls 
Shabataka "Sebichos,'' dropping the "ta," which is 
the Cushite word for ^'son.'' The Hebrews and As- 
syrians also dropped the definite article "^a," reduc- 
ing the name to Shaba, or Sheba, ''Male Cat." 

Rawlinson, in his excellent History of Assyria, 
tells us that Sarkon, having crushed the rebellion in 
Syria, turned his arms to the extreme south, and 
attacked Gaza, which had been a dependency of 
Egypt. In consequence of this provocation, Sebichos, 
called Sibahe or Sebake in the annals of Sarkon, ad- 
vanced towards Gaza, and joined forces with the Phil- 
istines. The warlike Assyrian monarch did not await 
the attack of the Tartan, or Sultan, of Egypt, as he 
is called in the annals, but advanced and met him 
at Raphia, the modern Rafah, about midway between 
Gaza and the Wady-el-Arish, or "River of Egypt." 
Here, on the coast of the Mediterranean Sea, the 
contending forces of the two greatest nations of the 
world met on the field of battle to decide the future 
destiny of Egypt. This was in the year of 719 B. C, 
three years after the accession of Sebichos, but more 
than 3,500 years after Menes, the first king, had 
founded the glorious kingdom of Upper and Lower 
Egypt, and built the great Temple of Ptah at Mem- 



5o4 A Self-Verifying Chronological 

phis. Alas! Egypt was but a semblance of her for- 
mer self; the population, once Japhetic, had become 
largely Cushite, with an additional mixture of Libyan 
blood, and the native kings and princes were no 
longer Pharaohs in the true sense of the word, but 
merely tributary rulers of nomes and districts under 
the Cushite sovereign, the Sultan of Ethiopia. 

The reader can easily anticipate what the result 
of this battle with the fiercest and most aggressive 
nation of Asia must have been. Rawlinson expresses 
it in one sentence: 

"Sargon having arrived, immediately engaged the 
allied army, and succeeded in defeating it completely, 
capturing Khanun, king of Gaza, and forcing Shebek 
to seek safety in flight." 

We are told that Samaria was taken in the sixth 
year of Hezekiah, and that in the fourteenth year 
of Hezekiah, or only eight years thereafter, Sen- 
nacherib, king of the Assyrians, came up against the 
fenced cities of Judah, and took them, whereupon 
Hezekiah sent messengers to the king of the As- 
syrians, to Eachis, offering submission, and Sen- 
nacherib put a tax upon him of thirty talents of gold 
and three hundred talents of silver. Instead of the 
fourteenth, we must read the twenty-seventh year. 
The long reign of Sarkon comes between Shalman- 
eser and Sennacherib, so that the latter did not mount 
the throne as king of the Assyrians until 704 B. C. 
George Smith, in his Assyrian Discoveries, pages 
296-308, gives an excellent translation of an inscrip- 



History of Ancient Egypt 505 



tion of this monarch engraved on a cylinder dis- 
covered by him. The portion referring to this ex- 
pedition reads : 

'In my third expedition I went to the land of the 
Hittites. . . . The priests, princes, and people of 
Ekron placed Padi their king, who was faithful and 
steadfast to Assyria, in bonds of iron, and gave him 
to Hezekiah, king of Judah, as an enemy; their hearts 
feared for the evil they had done. The kings of Egypt, 
and the archers, chariots, and horses of the king of 
Ethiopia, gathered a force without number, and came 
to their help. 

''In the vicinity of Eltekeh, their lines were placed 
before me, and they urged on their soldiers. In the 
service of Assur, my Lord, I fought with them, and 
their overthrow I accomplished. Alive in the midst of 
battle, my hand captured the charioteers and sons 
of the kings of Egypt, and the charioteers of the king 
of Ethiopia. I besieged and captured Eltekeh and 
Timnah, and carried off their spoil. . . . 

"And Hezekiah, of Judah, who did not submit to 
my yoke, forty-six of his strong cities and fortresses, 
and small cities which were around them, which were 
without number, with the marching of a host and 
surrounding of a multitude, with attack of ranks, 
force of battering-rams, mining, and missiles, I be- 
sieged and captured 200,150 people, small and great, 
male and female, and horses, mules, asses, camels, 
oxen, and sheep, which were without number, I 
brought out from the midst of them, and counted as 
spoil. I had made him like a caged bird within Jeru- 
salem, his royal city; I raised towers around him, and 
shut the exit of the great gate of his city, and he 
was conquered. . . . 

"The fear of the might of my dominion over- 



5o6 A Self-Verifying Chronological 

whelmed Hezekiah and the Urbi and his good sol- 
diers, whom he had caused to enter into Jerusalem 
to be preserved, and they inclined to submission, with 
thirty talents of gold, eight hundred talents of silver, 
precious carbuncles, etc. . . . 

"And he sent his daughters, the eunuchs of his 
palace, male musicians and female musicians, to the 
midst of Nineveh, the city of my dominion, after me, 
and he sent his messenger to give tribute and make 
submission." 

Now, as Sennacherib ascended the throne 704 
B. C, and this was his third expedition, the events 
here recorded could not have taken place earlier than 
702 B. C, or the twenty-sixth year of Hezekiah. In 
these accounts, each nation endeavors to present the 
occurrences in the most favorable light. 

Thus the annals of Sennacherib omit any men- 
tion of the expedition against Egypt and the terrible 
disaster before the walls of Pelusium. The Bible ac- 
count makes the same omission, and leaves us to 
infer that Sennacherib returned to Nineveh, where he 
was soon after murdered by his sons, when, in fact, 
he immediately gathered a powerful army, and 
marched to the land of Bit-yakin, and continued to 
reign fully twenty years thereafter. The priests of 
Egypt made no mention to Herodotus of the great 
battle of Eltekeh in which the Egyptian and Ethi- 
opian armies were overthrown. 

And Josephus, although he professes to quote all 
the authorities, garbles and confuses the facts more 
effectually than any of the others. According to 2 
Kings xix, 7, 8, 9, 35, ^6, ^y, the prophecy against 



History of Ancient Egypt 507 

Sennacherib was as follows: ''Behold, I will send a 
spirit upon him, and he shall hear a message, and 
shall return into his own country." When Rab- 
shakeh returned from Jerusalem he found Sennach- 
erib besieging Libnah. And when the king heard 
that Taraka, king of the Ethiopians, was coming out 
to fight with him, ''and was going against him,'' he 
sent messengers to Hezekiah, etc. "And it came to 
pass that night that an angel of the Lord came, and 
slew, in the camp of the Assyrians, 185,000. And 
when he arose early in the morning, he saw all the 
bodies of the dead. And Sennacherib, king of the 
Assyrians, departing, went away, and he returned and 
abode in Nineveh." 

We learn from the above that when Sennacherib 
heard that Taraka was coming out to fight with him, 
he went against him; but this is omitted in Isaiah 
xxxvii, 9. 

In Chronicles we read: ''And the Lord sent 
an angel, who cut off all the stout men and war- 
riors, and the captains of the army of the king 
of the Assyrians, and he returned with disgrace 
into his own country. And when he was come 
into the house of his god, his sons that came 
out of his bowels, slew him with the sword." Now 
would any one suppose, from this condensed account, 
that Sennacherib had made an expedition to Egypt 
to intercept Taraka, and was engaged in besieging 
Pelusium when his army was cut off, or that, after 
he departed and returned to Nineveh, he continued 
to reign nearly twenty years longer? 



5o8 A Self-Verifying Chronological 

After Anyses, Herodotus tells us, the priest of 
Vulcan, whose name was Sethon, reigned in Egypt. 
''He held in no account and despised the mihtary 
caste of the Egyptians, as not having need of their 
services; and accordingly, among other indignities, 
he took away their lands," etc. 

''After this, Sennacherib, king of the Arabians and 
Assyrians, marched a large army against Egypt, 
whereupon the Egyptian warriors refused to assist 
him; and the priest, being reduced to a strait, en- 
tered the temple, and bewailed before the image the 
calamities he was in danger of suffering. While he 
was lamenting sleep fell upon him, and it appeared 
to him in a vision that the god stood by and encour- 
aged him, assuring him that he would suffer nothing 
disagreeable in meeting the Arabian army, for he 
would himself send assistants to him. Confiding in 
the vision, he took with him such of the Egyptians 
as were willing to follow him, and encamped in 
Pelusium, for here is the entrance (into Egypt); but 
none of the military caste followed him, but trades- 
men, mechanics, and sutlers. When they arrived 
there, a number of field-mice, pouring in upon their 
enemies, devoured their quivers and their bows, and, 
moreover, the handles of their shields; so that, on 
the next day, when they fled bereft of their arms, 
many of them fell; and to this day a stone statue 
of this king stands in the temple of Vulcan with a 
mouse in his hand, and an inscription to the follow- 
ing effect : 'Whoever looks on me, let him revere the 
gods.' " (Herod, ii, 141.) 

Josephus, who knew the historical facts which had 
served as a basis for the priestly legends, after follow- 
ing the Bible account of Sennacherib's invasion of 



History of Ancient Egypt 509 

Judah down to the payment of the thirty talents of 
gold and three hundred talents of silver, says: ''Ac- 
cordingly the Assyrian king took it, and yet had no 
regard to what he promised; but while he himself 
went to the war against the Egyptians, he left his 
general, Rabshakeh, and two other of his principal 
commanders, with great forces, to destroy Jerusa- 
lem." 

Omitting what follows about the notice to surren- 
der, etc. Josephus, leaving the reader to infer that 
Sennacherib marched to the border of Egypt, and in- 
vested Pelusium, continues : 

"The king of Assyria, when he had failed of his 
treacherous designs against the Egyptians, returned 
home without success on the following occasion. 

"He spent a long time in the siege of Pelusium, 
and when the banks that he had raised over against 
the walls were of a great height, and when he was 
ready to make an immediate assault upon them, but 
heard that Tirhaka, king of the Ethiopians, was com- 
ing and bringing great forces to aid the Egyptians, 
and was resolved to march through the desert, and 
so to fall directly upon the Assyrians, this king Sen- 
nacherib was disturbed at the news; and, as I said 
before (?), left Pelusium, and returned back with- 
out success. Now, concerning this Sennacherib, 
Herodotus also says, in the second book of his his- 
tories, how 'this king came against the Egyptian 
king, who was the priest of Vulcan, and that, as he 
w^as besieging Pelusium, he broke up the siege on 
the following occasion: This Egyptian priest prayed 
to God, and God heard his prayer, and sent judgment 
on the Arabian king.' But in this Herodotus was 
mistaken when he called this king not king of the 



5IO A Self- Verifying Chronological 

Assyrians, but of the Arabians; for he sayeth that 
'a multitude of mice gnawed to pieces, in one night, 
both the bows and the rest of the armor of the As- 
syrians, and that it was on that account that the king, 
when he had no bows left, drew off his army from 
Pelusium.' 

"And Herodotus does indeed give us this history; 
nay, and Berosus, who wrote of the afifairs of Chaldea, 
makes mention of this King Sennacherib, and that he 
ruled over the Assyrians, and that he made an expe- 
dition against all Asia and Egypt, and says thus : 

" 'Now when Sennacherib was returning from his 
Egyptian war to Jerusalem, he found his army under 
Rabshakah, his general, in danger (by a plague), for 
God had sent a pestilential distemper upon his army; 
and, on the very first night of the siege, a hundred 
fourscore and five thousand, with their captains and 
generals, were destroyed. So the king was in great 
dread and in a terrible agony at this calamity, and, 
being in great fear for his whole army, he fled with 
the rest of his forces to his own kingdom, and to his 
city Nineveh; and when he had abode there a little 
while, he was treacherously assaulted, and died by the 
hands of his elder sons, Addremmelech and Seraser, 
and was slain in his own temple, which was called 
Araske. Now these sons of his were driven away 
on account of the murder of their father by the citi- 
zens, and went into Armenia, while Assarachoddas 
took the kingdom of Sennacherib. And this proved 
to be the conclusion of this Assyrian expedition 
against the people of Jerusalem.' " 

The battles of Raphia and Eltekah are mentioned 
in none of these accounts except the Assyrian. The 
Egyptian priests added the defection of the military 
caste, and represented Sethon's army as composed ex- 



History of Ancient Egypt 511 

clusively of tradesmen, mechanics, and sutlers, in or- 
der to heighten the effect of their story. The priestly 
redactors of the Jewish annals have entirely omitted 
all mention of Sennacherib's expedition to Egypt, in 
order to create the impression that the destruction 
of his army occurred in Judea. Josephus, however, 
flatly contradicts 2 Kings xix, 8 and 9, where it 
is clearly stated that Sennacherib was besieging Lib- 
nah when he received the message of the advance of 
Taraka, king of Ethiopia, and thence went out against 
him, when he asserts that the king of Assyria was be- 
sieging Pelusium at the time, and, being disturbed at 
the news, left Pelusium, and returned back without 
success. Note how he quotes Herodotus: 

*'This Egyptian priest prayed to God, and God 
heard his prayer, and sent judgment on the Arabian 
king." 

"A multitude of mice gnawed to pieces in one 
night both the bows and the rest of the armor of 
the Assyrians, and it was on this account that 
the king, w^hen he had no bows left, drew oif his 
army from Pelusium'' 

We see how inaccurate the alleged quotations 
of Josephus are, and what care and caution must 
be observed when we come to analyze the al- 
leged quotations from Manetho and Berosus. I 
regard the occurrence before the '^alls of Pelu- 
sium as the historical fact and the natural and 
direct cause of the tragedy. Migrations of countless 
numbers of locusts, quails, and field-mice in these 
desert countries are well-attested natural phenomena. 



512 A Self-Verifying Chronological 

If a migrating army of field-mice had succeeded in 
crossing the desert, they must have been almost 
starved and famished v^hen they providentially 
reached the camp of the Assyrian army, and it was 
but natural for them to gnaw and devour all the 
leather within reach. When the Assyrians discov- 
ered the damage that had been wrought in one night, 
they fled, and, between the pursuing Egyptians and 
the horrors of the desert they were compelled to re- 
treat through, large numbers of them perished. The 
report was current that Taraka and the Ethiopian 
army were coming across the desert, so as to inter- 
cept their retreat, and this naturally added to the 
panic caused by the work of the field-mice. 

Rawlinson supposes a second invasion about 699 
B. C, during which Sennacherib's army was de- 
stroyed; but this supposition is not supported by any 
evidence, and is contradicted by the Bible account. 

TWENTY-FIFTH DYNASTY OF ETHIOPIAN 

KINGS 

We have just seen that the Twenty-fourth Dy- 
nasty of Saite kings and Twenty-fifth Dynasty of 
Ethiopian kings were contemporary. Both dynas- 
ties began 730 B. C. and ended 665 B. C, but during 
the last twenty-five years of this period, to wit, from 
690 B. C. to 665 B. C, Taraka was king of Upper 
Egypt only, for Lower Egypt was subject to the 
Assyrians. The last four years of the reign of Zet, 
therefore, were during the Assyrian domination. 

The disaster to Sennacherib's army before the 



HiSTOR Y OF Ancient Eg j pt 5 1 3 

walls of Pelusium served to delay, but could not avert, 
the complete overthrow of Ethiopian supremacy in 
Lower Egypt. Sennacherib was the first Assyrian 
king to cross the desert which separates Egypt from 
Palestine. As this was near the beginning of his 
reign, we can assume that, after he had sufficiently 
recovered from the shock, he returned with another 
army to wipe out the disgrace which rested upon his 
standards. The second invasion of Egypt and the 
defeat of Taraka must have occurred about 690 B. C, 
because the eighteen years of his reign as king of 
Egypt came to an end in this year. The spade may 
yet turn up some long hidden memorial of the first 
conquest of Egypt by the Assyrians. Who could 
have guessed that Esarhaddon, the successor of 
Sennacherib, had made two separate expeditions to 
Egypt if the fact had not been revealed by cuneiform 
inscriptions discovered in Assyria? 

The first text, translated by George Smith, gives 
an account of the expedition of Esarhaddon against 
Taraka about 671 B. C. In his tenth expedition, 
Esarhaddon set his face toward the country of Makan 
and Meluha, by which names the Assyrians desig- 
nated Lower Egypt. (Right here I may remark that 
the Hamites,who had been domiciled in the Delta be- 
fore the Flood, carried these names to Babylonia 
when they founded that kingdom under Nimrod, and 
bestowed them on the Delta of the Euphrates and 
Tigris Rivers at the head of the Persian Gulf, and 
that the Assyrians, who originally migrated from that 
country, ostentatiously displayed their knowledge of 
33 



514 ^ Self- Verifying Chronological 

this fact by adhering to the ancient names.) He col- 
lected his powerful army, and went forth from his 
capital city, Assur, in the first month of Nisan, crossed 
over the rivers Tigris and Euphrates, and passed 
through difHcult countries like a bull, (Ka-nechtf) In 
the course of his expedition, he besieged Baal, king 
of Tyre, who had intrusted his country to Taraka, 
king of Cush (Ethiopia), had thrown off the yoke 
of Assur, and had made defiance. Leaving this city 
invested, he marched to Raphia, where Sarkon had 
gained his great victory, crossed the desert, where 
there was no water, and where his army suffered the 
greatest hardships, and eventually reached the Delta. 
The Assyrian authority was re-estabUshed over 
Lower Egypt, and the numerous petty kings, with 
whom we have become familiar through the cele- 
brated inscription of Pianchi, were accepted as As- 
syrian feudatories. Unfortunately, the text is frag- 
mentary, and breaks ofif in the most important parts. 
Owing to this, we do not know whether Esarhaddon 
succeeded in his campaign against Thebes and Nubia, 
where he expected, once for all, to suppress the 
Ethiopian king. The Assyrian army suffered severely 
from the nature of the country, and, as far as Taraka 
was concerned, the expedition was without perma- 
nent results. Taraka seems to have remained quies- 
cent during the reign of Esarhaddon, whom he had 
learned to fear, that is, from 690 B. C. to 667 B. C. ; 
but upon his death, as we learn from the annals of 
Assurbanipal, he invaded Lower Egypt, overcame the 
kings and governors whom Esarhaddon had ap- 



HiSTOR Y OF Ancient Eg ypt 5 1 5 

pointed, despised the power of Assur, Ishtar, and the 
other great gods of the Assyrians, and trusted to his 
own might. When Assurbanipal received this news, 
he was going in state in the midst of Nineveh, and 
his heart was bitter and much afflicted over these 
things. 

He gathered his powerful forces, which Assur and 
Ishtar had placed in his hands, and directed his march 
to Egypt and Ethiopia. Taraka, who was in Mem- 
phis, heard of the progress of his expedition, and 
sent out his army to meet him; but the terror of 
Assur and Ishtar overcame him, his army was de- 
feated and overthrown; overwhelmed, he abandoned 
Memphis, and, to save his hfe, fled to Thebes. Assur- 
banipal pursued him, and took that city also. He 
tells us that he restored the kings, prefects, and gov- 
ernors whom his father, Esarhaddon, had appointed, 
naming twenty of them, among whom we will only 
mention "Necho, king of Memphis, and Sais," who, 
according to Manetho, reigned from (yy^ B. C. to 
665 B. C. After doing all this, the Assyrian king 
returned to Nineveh with abundant plunder and much 
spoil. But these kings, seeking to rebel, conspired 
with Taraka, and were about to throw off the As- 
syrian yoke, when they were arrested and bound 
hands and feet by the Assyrian generals who had 
been left in Egypt by Assurbanipal. 

Necho, however, found favor in the sight of the 
king, and was restored to his kingdom; costly gar- 
ments were placed upon him, ornaments of gold and 
his royal image made for him, bracelets of gold fast- 



5i6 A Self-Verifying Chronological 

ened upon his limbs, and a sword of steel, with a 
sheath of gold, given him. Assurbanipal sent his 
generals as governors to assist him, and appointed, 
for his royal riding, chariots, horses, and mules. The 
son of Necho was appointed as local governor in 
Athribis. The Assyrian monarch tells us that he be- 
stowed on Necho benefits and favors far beyond 
those which his father Bsarhaddon had bestowed on 
him. 

''Taraka fled from the place, the might of the 
soldiers of Assur, my lord, overwhelmed him, and he 
went to his place of night," that is, he died. 

The great Ethiopian king who had reigned as 
king of Egypt from 708 B. C. to 690 B. C, and as 
king of Upper Egypt and Ethiopia from 690 B. C. 
to 665 B. C, a period of forty-three years, and who 
had made one of the most heroic defenses of his 
native land, against overwhelming odds, to be found 
in the annals of history, a long and determined strug- 
gle against fate, seems to have died of a broken heart 
in extreme old age. Is it a wonder that the name 
of Taraka has come down to us enveloped in a halo 
of legend and myth as one of the greatest warriors 
of antiquity? 

After Taraka's death, Undamane (Rud-amen), son 
of Shabaka, ascended the throne. He made the cities 
of Thebes and Hermopolis his fortresses, gathered his 
forces, besieged the Assyrians and their tributary 
kings in Memphis, and took them. A swift messen- 
ger conveyed the news to Nineveh. 

Assurbanipal tells us that he directed his second 



HiSTOR Y OF Ancient Eg ypt 517 

expedition to Egypt and Ethiopia. Undamane heard 
of the progress of the expedition, and that he had 
crossed the border of Egypt, and thereupon aban- 
doned Memphis, and fled to Thebes to save his Hfe. 
The kings, prefects, and governors, whom Assur- 
banipal had set up in Egypt, came to his presence, 
and offered their submission. 

The Assyrian king pursued Undamane to Thebes, 
but the Ethiopian, when he saw^ the powerful army 
of his enemy, abandoned Thebes, and fled to Kip- 
kip in Ethiopia. The ''Great City" was now thor- 
oughly sacked and plundered, and the "spoil great 
and unnumbered," including two lofty obelisks, cov- 
ered with beautiful carving, that stood before the gate 
of a temple, carried off in triumph to Assyria. This 
catastrophe happened about 665 B. C. At least, 
Psammetichos, the first king of the Twenty-sixth 
Dynasty, dated his inscriptions from the death of 
Taraka, king of Upper Egypt, or 665 B. C. In the 
annals of his third campaign, 664 B. C, Assurbanipal 
tells us that he went against Baal, king of Tyre, and 
reduced him to submission. "Gyges, king of Lydia, 
a district across the sea, a remote place," sent mes- 
sengers to pray for friendship; but after he had pre- 
vailed over the Kimmerians, he hardened his heart, 
discontinued the messengers, and sent his forces to 
the aid of Psammetichos, king of Egypt, who had 
thrown off the Assyrian yoke. As a punishment for 
this bad faith, the Kimmerians came and swept the 
whole of his country. Thus Manetho is sustained to 
the very year by the annals of Assurbanipal, for this 



5i8 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

monarch does not appear to have again set foot on 
the soil of Egypt, but informs us expressly that, at 
the time of his third expedition, or 664 B. C, Psam- 
metichos had thrown off the yoke, and had become 
king of Egypt. The dates of the separate reigns can 
be fixed as follows : 

Native kings, . . . 730 B. C. Ethiopians, . . . 730 B. C. 
Zet, or Rokchoris, • 44 Shabaka, 8 

686 B. C. 722 B. C. 

Tephnachtis, ... 7 Shabataka, .... 14 

679 B. C. 708 B. C. 

Nephepsos, .... 6 Taraka, 18 

673 B. C. 690 B. C. 

Nechao I, 8 Taraka, King of 

Upper Egypt, . . 25 

665 B. C. 665 B. C. 

Thus Hosea was contemporary with Shabaka and 
Zet. When Sarkon gained his great victory at 
Raphia, Shabataka, or Sebichos, and Zet were rul- 
ing. The defeat of Sennacherib before Pelusium took 
place while Taraka was king of Egypt, and Zet, petty 
king of Memphis and Sais. If Egypt was conquered 
by Sennacherib about 690 B. C, Zet, who was then 
king of Memphis and Sais, probably transferred his 
allegiance from Taraka to Sennacherib. Tephnachtis, 
it seems, was deposed about 679 B. C, and Nechep- 
sos, in his turn, about 6y2, B. C. Nechao I was 
put in his place. We accordingly find the latter 
mentioned by Assurbanipal about 66y B. C. 

The date 665 B. C. for the beginning of the reign 



History of Ancient Egypt 519 

of Psammetichos, thus worked out from the separate 
reigns and synchronisms, is supported by the astro- 
nomical dates of the Egyptians. 

Epoch of Amliir, 724 B. C. 

Zet, after epoch, as "Amiris," 38 

~686B.C. 
Tephnachtis, 7 

679 B. C. 
Nechepsos, 6 

~6^B.C. 
Nechao I, 8 

Accession of Psammetichos I, 665 B. C. 

Psammetiches I, : 54 

"eTi B. C. 
Nechao I, before epoch, 7 

Epoch of Phamenoth, 604 B. C. 

TWENTY- SIXTH DYNASTY OF SIX SAITE 

KINGS 

Guided by the star that led the three wise men 
to Bethlehem, we have safely traversed the unknown 
sea of ancient chronology, and now we find ourselves 
upon firm historical ground. 

"Thus much of the account the Egyptians and 
the priests related," says Herodotus at this point, 
adding : *'What things both other men and the Egyp- 
tians agree in saying occurred in this country, I shall 
now proceed to relate, and shall add to them some 
things of my own observation." 

Notwithstanding this promising introduction, the 
"Father of History" inaugurates his description of 
this dynasty with an account of the building of the 



520 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

Labyrinth, which is out of place and anachronistic by 
nearly 2,000 years. 

Beginning of Twenty-sixtli Dynasty, 665 B. C. 

1. Psammetichos I, 54 

~6iiB.C. 

2. Nechao II, before epoch of Phamenoth, .... 7 

Epoch, 604 B. C. 

Nechao II, after epoch, 9 

~595 B. C. 

3. Psammetichos II, another ^ 6 

~^B.C. 

4. IJaphris, 19 

~^B.C. 

5. Amosis, « 44 

"526 B.C. 

6. Psammecherites (six months), ........ i 

End of Dynasty, 525 B. C. 

We have purposely given Manetho's List first, so 
that the reader might more readily see how the 
division of Necho's reign by the epoch of Pham- 
enoth, 604 B. C, has affected the present Hsts. 

Africanus. Eusebius. 

1. Psammetichos, . 54 years i. Psammetichos, . 44 years 

2. Nechao II, ... 6 " 2. Nechao II, ... 6 " 

3. Psammuthis, an- 3. Psammuthis, an- 

other, 6 " other, .... 17 " 

4. Uaphris, .... 19 " 4. Uaphris, .... 25 " 

5. Amosis, 44 " 5. Amosis, .... 42 " 

6. Psammecherites, Yz " 6. Psammecherites, Yz " 

Nechao II, as we also know from Herodotus, 
reigned sixteen years; but neither this number nor 
the seventeen years before the epoch, nor the nine 
years after it, appear in the above lists. Eusebius 



History of Ancient Egypt 521 

attempted to correct the error, and restore the Hst, 
by giving Psammuthis seventeen years, and Uaphris 
(6+19) twenty-five years. The epoch-title, 'Tsam- 
muthis," has usurped the place of Psammetichos II, 
although the word ''another," which was used in- 
stead of II, remains to identify him. The eighty- 
third king of the pseudo-Sothis List is "Nechao II 
Pharaoh," with a reign of nine years, that is, his reign 
after the epoch. I contend that his entire reign was 
sixteen years and, at least, six months, whence the 
seventeen years of Eusebius. This view is sustained 
by the date of the conquest of Egypt by Cambyses, 
525 B. C. ; for we need these six months to complete 
the seventy-nine years between the epoch 604 B. C. 
and the date of the conquest. 

Herodotus gives Psammis (Psamuis?), the suc- 
cessor of Neko, six years; but it seems strange that, 
as far back as 450 B. C, he should give Uaphris 
twenty-five instead of nineteen years, an error re- 
sulting from this same Sothiac division of Neko's 
reign. 

The history of this dynasty is so well known that 
I shall merely take up a few points which are closely 
connected with the chronology of the period, and 
afford synchronisms by which it can be tested and 
corroborated. We have seen that the fifty-four years 
of Psammetichos I began in the third year of Assur- 
banipal, 665 B. C. 

We learn from the annals of Assurbanipal that, 
when he mounted the throne of Assyria, Gyges was 
king of Lydia, ''a distant and remote country;" and 



522 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

Herodotus tells us that, during the reign of Ardys, 
the son and successor of Gyges, the Kimmerians, 
being driven from their seats by the Skythian nomads, 
passed into Asia, and possessed themselves of all Sar- 
dis except the citadel. 

This occupation of Lydia by the Kimmerians is 
alluded to by Assurbanipal in the account of his 
third expedition. 

He tells us that Gyges, king of Lydia, had re- 
ceived intelligence of his grand kingdom through a 
dream, and had sent his messenger to pray for Assur- 
banipaFs friendship. "From the midst of the day 
when he took the yoke of my kingdom, he captured 
the Kimmerians, wasters of the people of his coun- 
try, who did not fear my fathers and me, and did not 
take the yoke of my kingdom." 

*'His messengers, whom, to pray for my friend- 
ship, he was constantly sending, he willfully discon- 
tinued, as the will of Assur, my creator, he had dis- 
regarded; and he trusted to his own power, and hard- 
ened his heart. 

"He sent his forces to the aid of Psammetichos, 
king of Egypt, who had thrown off the yoke of my 
dominion, and I heard of it, and prayed to Assur and 
Ishtar thus : 'May they cast his corpse before his 
enemies, and may they carry his servants captive!' 
When thus to Assur I had prayed, he requited me, 
for his corpse was thrown down before his enemies, 
and they carried his servants captive. The Kimme- 
rians, whom by the glory of my name he had trodden 
under him, came and swept the whole of his country. 
After him his son sat on the throne. By the hand 
of his envoy he sent and took the yoke of my king- 



History of Ancient Egypt 523 

dom, thus: 'The king whom God has blessed, art 
thou; my father departed from thee, and evil was 
done in his time; I am thy devoted servant, and my 
people all perform thy pleasure.' " 

This is a remarkable confirmation, in part, of 
what Herodotus relates, and it is important in fixing 
the date of these events between 667 and 664 B. C. 
While a new and unexpected enemy had thus arisen 
on the western border of Assyria, another, even more 
formidable, had imperceptibly grown up on the east; 
and, as if it wxre providential, all this occurred when 
Assyria stood at the very pinnacle of her greatness, 
and no doubt considered herself invincible. Herodo- 
tus informs us that Deioces collected the Medes into 
one nation, and when he died, after reigning fifty- 
three years, his son Phraortes succeeded him in the 
kingdom. He first of all attacked the Persians, and 
reduced them under the dominion of the Medes. 
Afterward, being master of these two nations, both 
of them powerful, he subdued Asia, attacking one 
nation after the other, till, at last, he invaded the 
Assyrians, who had before been supreme, though at 
that time they were abandoned by their confederates 
who had revolted, but who were otherwise in good 
condition. The first encounter between the Medes and 
the victorious armies of the Assyrians proved very 
disastrous to the invaders; for Phraortes, with the 
greater part of his army, perished miserably after he 
had reigned twenty-two years. Cyaxares, his son, 
who is said to have been more warlike than his an- 
cestors, succeeded him. After he had subjected the 



524 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

whole of Asia above the river Halys, he assembled 
his forces and marched against Nineveh to avenge his 
father and destroy that city. He obtained a victory 
over the Assyrians, and was besieging Nineveh when 
a great army of Skythians came upon him. This sav- 
age horde had driven the Kimmerians out of Europe, 
and, pursuing them into Asia, entered the territory 
of the Medes. They passed along the north flank of 
the Caucasus, and entered Media near the western 
shore of the Caspian Sea. There the Medes came into 
an engagement with them; but, being worsted in the 
battle, the Skythians became masters of all Asia. 
From thence they proceeded toward Egypt; but when 
they had reached Palestine in Syria, Psammetichos, 
king of Egypt, wisely met them with presents and 
prayers, and diverted them from advancing farther. 
Returning, they governed Asia for twenty-eight years, 
and everything was overthrown by their licentious- 
ness; for besides the usual tribute, they exacted from 
each whatever they chose to impose, and rode around 
the country plundering the people of all their posses- 
sions. After these fateful twenty-eight years, Cyax- 
ares defeated them and recovered his former power, 
and finally took Nineveh and reduced the Assyrians 
into subjection, having reigned altogether forty years. 
(Herod. I, loo to io6.) I regard the account of 
Herodotus as strictly historical, and see no reason to 
doubt that Deioces "collected the Medes into one 
nation." 

His son, Phraortes, succeeded to a powerful and 
well-organized kingdom, and to assert, as some do, 



History of Ancient Egypt 525 

that the separate tribes of the Medes were not organ- 
ized into a nation by Deioces is simply to beg the 
question, for it impUes that some one before Deioces 
did it, a bare assertion without any evidence, proba- 
biUty, or authority to support it. 

The defeat and death of Phraortes gives us a fixed 
point from which we can proceed to determine the 
relative dates of these events: 



Assyrian. 


Median. 


Sennacherib, . 704-680 B. C. 


Deioces, . . 


708-655 B. C. 


Esarhaddon, . 680-667 B. C. 


Phraortes, . 


655-633 B. C. 


Assurbanipal, 667-626 B. C. 


Cyaxares, . . 


633-593 B. C 




Astyages, . . 


593-558 B. C 




Cyrus, . . . 


558-529 B. C 



The defeat of Phraortes, therefore, occurred in the 
year d^^Z B. C, and his opponent was Assurbanipal, 
one of the greatest warriors that ever ruled over As- 
syria. We can now see that the repeated raids of the 
Assyrians into Media, under Sennacherib and Esar- 
haddon, compelled the Medes to unite for self-preser- 
vation, and enabled Deioces to consoHdate them into 
a compact nation. Although the Medes sustained a 
severe repulse under Phraortes, their recuperative 
powers were unimpaired, and, to the surprise of the 
Assyrians, they returned in a few years after 633 
B. C. under a more warlike king, and this time the 
invincible host of the Assyrians, and their proud mon- 
arch himself, turned their backs and sought refuge 
behind the impregnable walls of Nineveh. 

While Cyaxares and his Medes were besieging the 
capital of Assyria (the wicked city which had re- 
sounded with the prophetic warnings of Jonah), a 



526 A Self-Verifying Chronological 

black and destructive storm-cloud suddenly and un- 
expectedly burst upon the neighboring districts of 
Media — a savage horde of wild and uncouth barba- 
rians, whose ferocity knew no bounds. Cyaxares im- 
mediately raised the siege and hurried back to Media, 
when his army was defeated and driven back by the 
invaders. These Skythians were akin to the Huns, 
Cossacks, and Calmucks of later ages, and belonged 
to that great destructive, serpent-worshiping race of 
Ham, which flooded and almost destroyed the civil- 
ized world in the year 2348 B. C. These animal-like 
barbarians, after roaming over the boundless steppes 
of Eastern Russia for many centuries, were suddenly 
seized by an irresistible impulse, which impelled them 
onward like a swarm of locusts, so that, after driving 
the Kimmerians out of their primeval seats in Europe, 
they suddenly burst forth from behind the lofty ranges 
of the Caucasus, and spread over Mesopotamia like 
a deluge. The Assyrians, who had just escaped from 
the Medes, were in no condition to meet them or 
drive them back, and we are bound to assume that the 
most cruel and bloodthirsty nation of Asia fell an easy 
victim to a still more cruel and bloodthirsty foe. No 
account of the devastation of Assyria by this horde 
has come down to us; but, as their course was west- 
ward from Media, they necessarily passed through the 
rich and luxurious districts of the Assyrians, leaving 
ruin and desolation in their wake, and we can account 
for the sudden, utter, and complete collapse of the 
Assyrian kingdom in no other way. 

The Skythians were led by a king called Madyes, 



History of Ancient Egypt 527 

and after they had repulsed the Medes fell upon the 
opulent cities of Assyria, instead of pursuing the 
Medes into their mountain fastnesses, where there 
was little to tempt the cupidity of the barbarians. 
Placing this invasion at approximately 630 B. C, 
Psammetichos had been reigning over thirty-five 
years when he averted the impending danger by meet- 
ing the invaders in Palestine, and prevailing upon 
them with rich presents to advance no farther. In 
fact, the barbarians do not seem to have been without 
military tact and discretion, for they were careful to 
keep their line of communication with Skythia open, 
and not to advance too far southward, which would 
have endangered it, and laid them liable to being cut 
off, hemmed in, and caught in a trap. 

It was for this reason also that they did not ven- 
ture into Babylonia. Madyes was too careful a leader 
to permit the Lydians, Assyrians, and Medes to unite 
and take up a commanding position between him and 
his home in Russia, and therefore maintained the 
main body of the Skythians in Assyria proper, which 
was the key to the situation. Herodotus tells us ex- 
pressly that they governed Asia for twenty-eight 
years, at the end of which time Cyaxares and the 
Medes invited the greatest part of them to a feast, 
and, having made them drunk, put them to death, 
showing that the greater part of them were stationed 
near Media, or, as we have just said, in Assyria. 
Accepting the numbers of Herodotus in preference to 
imaginary and speculative numbers, we can fix the 
expulsion of the Skythians at about 602 B. C. 



528 A Self-Verifying Chronological 

Assyria, which had been crippled and paralyzed 
in this extraordinary manner, was completely wiped 
out, and Egypt enjoyed an Indian summer, which was 
as brilliant and gorgeous as it was brief and delusive. 
Nechao mounted the throne in the year 6ii B. C, 
under apparently very auspicious conditions, and 
being vigorous and warlike, he immediately organized 
a large army, invaded Asia, and took possession of 
Palestine and Syria to the banks of the Euphrates. 
It was in the year 609 B. C. that Josiah, the king of 
Judah, drew up his army at Megiddo, the scene of 
so many celebrated battles, to oppose the progress of 
Nechao's army. In vain did Phataoh assure the Jew- 
ish king that he had no hostile intentions against the 
Jews, but was marching against the Babylonians in 
obedience to the command of his god. Josiah re- 
mained obdurate, was defeated, and lost his life. The 
exact and complete agreement of all the dates in- 
volved at this point are of the deepest significance, 
because they prove the absolute character of the so- 
called epoch-reigns, which, being fixed by astronom- 
ical observations, must necessarily bear the test. It 
will be seen that Nechao enlisted and organized this 
army in the short space of two years. The Manetho- 
nian Lists, brief as they are, inform us that he captured 
Jerusalem and carried away King Jehoahaz. Jo- 
sephus tells us that Neco, king of Egypt, raised an 
army and marched to the river Euphrates, in order to 
fight with the Medes and Babylonians, who had over- 
thrown the dominion of the Assyrians, for he had a 
desire to rule over Asia. This reference to the Medes 



History of Ancient Egypt 529 

and Babylonians shows that in this instance Josephus 
followed reliable authorities, for Cyaxares was still 
reigning over the Medes, although it would be neces- 
sary to shorten the dominion of the Skythians over 
Asia from twenty-eight to about twenty-one years, if 
the final capture of Nineveh is placed back as far as 
609 B. C. As Jehoahaz reigned but three months 
and ten days, it results that Neco overran and took 
possession of all the country to the river Euphrates 
within about three months from the battle of Me- 
giddo. According to the ''Canon of Ptolemy," Neb- 
uchadnezzar became king of Babylonia 604 B. C. 

A great battle was fought between the Babylon- 
ians and the Egyptians at the city of Carchemish on 
the Euphrates, which resulted in the signal overthrow 
of the latter, so that Nebuchadnezzar passed over the 
Euphrates, and took Syria as far as Pelusium. In the 
defeat of the Egyptian monarch the Jews lost their 
best friend, for nothing is more evident to the careful 
student of Egyptian history than the fact that the 
Egyptians were at all times friendly and well disposed 
to the Jews, who seem to have been regarded by them 
as Egyptian colonists. The capture of Jerusalem by 
Shishak can not be regarded as an exception to this 
rule, because this king, as we have already shown, 
was Cushite, and not Japhite. Thus it happened that 
the king of Babylon first forced the Jews to become 
tributary, then took their city and carried many of 
them away as captives to Babylonia, and finally in his 
nineteenth year — that is, 586 B. C. — burned and de- 
stroyed Jerusalem, and carried the rest of the Jews 
34 



530 A Self-Verifying Chronological 

away into captivity, leaving only a small remnant of 
the meaner sort to till the land. 

Now Uaphris mounted the throne 589 B. C, or 
three years before the burning of the Temple, and we 
accordingly find in the Manethonian l^ists that this 
miserable and heartbroken remnant fled to this king 
to escape from the power of the Babylonians here as 
elsewhere called Assyrians by Manetho. 

The end of this dynasty is properly the end of this 
little work, because it brings us down to the year 
525 B. C, when Cambyses, the king of Persia, con- 
quered Egypt, and placed upon his head the double 
crown of Upper and I^ower Egypt, which had been 
worn with so much true dignity by such celebrated 
men and rulers as Menes, Chufu, Amenemes, Thoth- 
mes, and Ramesses. O, what a fall was there ! The 
Manethonian Lists show upon their face that Camby- 
ses commenced to reign over Egypt in the fifth year 
of his reign as king of Persia. AccorcHng to the 
Canon of Ptolemy he reigned from 529 to 521 B. C, 
consequently his fifth year was 525 B. C, and as his 
reign ended 521 B. C, he heads the Twenty-seventh 
Dynasty of eight Persian kings with four years. By 
mistake Cambyses is now credited with six instead of 
four years in the list of Africanus. Eusebius has a 
different arrangement. He at first enters Cambyses 
with three years, dating from his fifth year as king of 
Persia, and then enters the "Magi" with seven 
months, the two, in round numbers, filling out the 
interval of four years between 525 and 521 B. C. 



History of Ancient Egypt 



53^ 



Neither Africanus nor Ptolemy enter these seven 
months of the "Magi" as a separate reign. With 
this rectification, Manetho and Ptolemy compare as 
follows : 



Manetho 








Ptolemy. 




I. Cambyses, . . 


4 


years 




Cambyses, from 
fifth year, . . 


4 years 


2. Darius, . . . 


36 


(( 




Darius I, . . . . 


36 " 


3. Xerxes, . . . 


21 


i( 


3- 


Xerxes, . . . . 


21 " 


4. Artabanos, 


7 


months 








5. Artaxerxes, 


41 


years 


5. 


Axtaxerxes I, . . 


41 " 


6. Xerxes, . . . 


2 


months 


6. 






7. Sogdianos, . . 


• 7 


<' 


7- 






8. Darius, . . . . 


19 


years 


8. 


Darius II, . . . 


19 " 



Total. 



As Ptolemy omits all reigns below one year, it is 
evident that the eight years of Cambyses included the 
seven months of Magi, and was, therefore, slightly 
in excess of his actual reign, and the extra months 
were estimated as an additional year in the forty-six 
years given by Ptolemy to Artaxerxes II. This shows 
what an important item the extra months and extra 
days may become, and one should always bear in mind 
that Manetho himself recorded the separate reigns 
accurately in years, months, and days, and that the 
changes to years were made by Africanus and Eu- 
sebius. We should also bear in mind that Manetho 
antedates Ptolemy by several centuries, and that the 
latter, in preparing his celebrated Canon, used Man- 
etho and Berosus. 

Xerxes I commenced to reign 485 B. C, or just 



532 A Self-Verifying Chronological 



one year before the epoch of Pharmuthi, 484 B. C. 
Manetho mentioned this fact, showing that after 
Xerxes had reigned one year he becarrie the epoch- 
king "Psamuthis" — that is, P'sa-muth-i, "the son of 
Muth." Afterwards "Psamuthis" was mistaken for a 
separate king, and as there was plainly no place for 
him in a Persian Dynasty, he was by one set of epit- 
omists transferred to the Twenty-sixth Dynasty, and 
by another to the Twenty-ninth Dynasty, where he 
appears as 'Tsammuthis" and ''Muthis," with the 
distinctive one year. 

A similar mistake occurred in the Thirtieth Dy- 
nasty, where the epoch-title of Necht-har-heb (Nekt- 
arebes), ''Amyrtaios," was supposed to stand for a 
separate king, and was substituted for the name of 
the last king of the Twenty-eighth Dynasty, which 
now appears as follows in the Hsts: "Twenty-eighth 
Dynasty, Amyrtaios Saites, six years." 

Of course, Manetho's Twenty-eighth Dynasty was 
composed of the native claimants to the throne during 
the one hundred and twenty-two years of Persian 
domination, the last of whom actually reigned six 
years after the period, or from 403 to 397 B. C. In 
this way these six years ultimately became separated 
from the last king of the dynasty, whose entire reign 
had been first given. Then, as the six years only 
belonged in the chronological list, the dynasty itself 
was omitted and lost, and Saites, with six years, and 
Amyrtaios, with the like number, substituted for it. 
We have already seen that Zet, or "Saites," reigned 
six years before the epoch 724 B. C. It remains to 



History of Ancient Egypt 533 

be seen that Nechtarebes reigned six years after the 
epoch 364 B. C. 

End of Persian Dynasty, according to Manetho, . 403 B. C. 
Amyrtaios and Saites, 6 

397 B. C. 
Nepherites, 6 

"391 B. C. 
Achoris, 13 

^ B-. C. 
Psammuthis, or Muthis, i 

~377B.C. 
Nepherites (four months) i 

"376 B.C. 
Nektarebes, before epoch of Pachons, 12 

"^B.C. 
Nektarebes, after epoch, as "Amyrtaios," ..... 6 

"358 B.C. 
Teos, 2 

^B.C. 
Nektanebos (Necht-neb-ef)^ 18 

End of Thirtieth Dynasty, 339 B. C. 

We need not repeat here why Amen-ir-tais, or 
"Ammonodotus," was selected as a most appropriate 
epoch-title for the month of Chons, the son of Amen 
and Muth, having explained it fully in connection with 
the epoch 3284 B. C. The discrepancy of one year 
between 338 and 339 B. C, at the end, is apparent 
only. Ptolemy places Artaxerxes II at 404 B. C, but 
gives him an extra year made up of the odd months 
of his predecessors. We have given this extra year to 
the Persian Dynasty, which ends with Darius II; but 
its true duration was one hundred and twenty-two 
years and four months. Now, here are four extra 



534 ^ Self-Verifying Chronological 

months to be taken into consideration; but they are 
more than overcome by the extra one year of Psam- 
muthis, or Muthis, already included in the twenty-one 
years of Xerxes I. Thus it is extremely gratifying to 
find that the separate eras and epochs bring us down 
to 339 B. C, the exact date required by the grand 
totals 350 and 3555, beginning respectively at the 
celebrated era, 4244 B. C, and the equally celebrated 
date, 3894 B. C. 

BABYLONIAN AND ASSYRIAN CHRO- 
NOLOGY 

Since the Tel-el- Amarna clay-tablets have revealed 
the fact that Burna-buryas, king of Babylon; Assur- 
uballid, king of Assyria; and Ach-en-aten, king of 
Egypt, were contemporaries, we have a fixed point 
from which we can proceed to build up and restore 
the chronology of Babylonia and Assyria. 

According to the Mosaic account, Nimrod organ- 
ized the first great kingdom in the alluvial plains of 
Babylonia. We are told that he began to be mighty 
upon the earth. "And the beginning of his kingdom 
was Babylon, and Erech (Arach), and Accad, and 
Calneh (Chalanne), in the land of Shinar. Out of 
that land came forth Assur and builded Nineveh and 
the streets of the city, and Calah, and Resen between 
Nineveh and Calah: this is the great city." Now 
the above, coming from such an authority, carries 
with it great weight, and deserves much consider- 
ation. It shows, beyond question, that Babylonian 



History of Ancient Egypt 535 

and Assyrian chronology can not be carried back be- 
yond the date of the Flood, or 2348 B. C. 

We have already demonstrated that Ham, the son 
of Noah, represents the government established by 
resident Hamites in the Delta, about 2448 B. C. 
After the great 'Aamu invasion of Western Asia and 
Egypt, in the year 2348 B. C, these Egyptian Ham- 
ites, v^ho had learned the art of government in Egypt, 
organized kingdoms in Babylonia, which v^ere mod- 
eled after the kingdom of Upper and Lower Egypt 
as it existed under the kings of the Sixteenth Dy- 
nasty. The sons of this Ham were Cush, or the Kashi 
of Elam and Babylonia; Mizraim, or the Hyksos; 
Phut, or the Libyans; and Canaan. Here Cush, the 
first named, represents the first government estab- 
lished in Babylonia, which, however, must have been 
tributary to the Elamite tyrants mentioned by Ber- 
osos. The birth of Cush can be fixed provisionally at 
2348 B. C, and would correspond with the eight 
Median tyrants mentioned by Berosus. 

Nimrod, the son of Cush, marks a government 
derived from this Cushite government, limited to 
Babylonia, and distinct from Elam, the beginning 
of which may be placed provisionally at 2124 B. C. 
The all-important fact, however, is that Moses placed 
all of these sons of Ham, without exception, after the 
Flood. 

The Babylonians themselves did not pretend to 
have any authentic history beyond the Elamite con- 
quest. The eighty-six kings who now appear before 



536 A Self-Verifying Chronological 

the Median ('Aamu, Elamite) invasion of 2348 B. C. 
are plainly mythological (unless they are the seventy- 
six kings of Manetho's "main line" before this date), 
just as the total of 24,080 years, allotted to them by 
Eusebius, is certainly a slightly changed Sothiac num- 
ber. This total was made up as follows : 

Twenty- two Sothiac cycles before the era 

2784 B. C, 32,142 years 

Interval between 2784 B. C. and 2348 B. C, 436 
First Dynasty, eight Median kings, . . . 224 
Second Dynasty, eleven Median kings, . . 48{?) 
Third Dynasty, forty -nine Babylonian 

kings, 458 

Fourth Dynasty, nine Arabian kings, . . 245 
Fifth Dynasty, forty Babylonian kings, . 526 
One extra Sothiac year, i 1,938 " 

Total, 34,080 " 

Now, as we shall see, this total, as set down by 
Berosus, was 34,180, and reached down to the era of 
Nabonassar, 747 B. C, the deficiency of one hundred 
years being due to an error in the total of the Second 
Dynasty, which was one hundred and forty-eight, in- 
stead of forty-eight, years. After this mistake was 
made the separate sums footed up 34,080 only, in- 
stead of the required 34,180. Berosus evidently 
treated the ten dynasties before the Flood, including 
Xisuthrus, or Noah, as mythological, for he assigned 
to them astronomical periods, instead of historical 
numbers. By going back sufficiently far in the Great 
Year of twenty-five Sothiac cycles, or 36,525 Sothiac 
years, for his mythological beginning point, he was 
able to fix the beginning of his first historical dynasty 
of eight Median tyrants — that is, Elamite kings — at 



History of Ancient Egypt 537 

2348 B. C, and to connect accurately with the estab- 
lished era in Babylonia, to wit, the era of Nabonassar, 
747 B. C. In this way the system became self- 
verifying. 

For illustration, take twenty-three Sothiac cycles 
prior to the Sothiac era 1324 B. C, which give us 
(1461X23) ZZ^^^Z years, and add to this sum the 577 
years between the era 1324 B. C. and the era 747 
B. C, and we obtain the 34,180 years of Berosus. 

In his celebrated treatise against Apion, Josephus 
says concerning Berosus (Book I, ch. 19) : 

"I will now relate what has been written concern- 
ing us in the Chaldean histories : which records have 
a great agreement with our books in other things 
also. Berosus shall be witness to what I say : he was 
by birth a Chaldean, well known by the learned on 
account of his publication of the Chaldean books of 
astronomy and philosophy among the Greeks. This 
Berosus, therefore, following the most ancient records 
of that nation, gives us a history of the deluge of 
waters that then happened, and of the destruction of 
mankind thereby, and agrees with Moses' narration 
thereof. He also gives us an account of that ark 
wherein Noah, the origin of our race, was preserved 
when it was brought to the highest part of the Ar- 
menian Mountains: after which he gives us a cata- 
logue of the posterity of Noah, and adds the years of 
their chronology, and at length comes down to Nabo- 
lassar, who was king of Babylon and of the Chal- 
deans." 

Thus it is certain that Berosus traced his history 
and chronology through Egyptian sources prior to 
the Hamite invasion of Western Asia and Egypt, 



538 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

which is veiled under the Allegory of the Flood. The 
chronological scheme of Berosus has come down to 
us through Eusebius and Syncellus. Without going 
into particulars, it was my good fortune to discover 
that the Second Median (Elamite) Dynasty reigned 
one hundred and forty-eight years instead of forty- 
eight, and that the five hundred and twenty-six years 
of the last forty kings extend down to the era of 
Nabonassar, 747 B. C. We accordingly have (omit- 
ting the mythological dynasties before the flood) the 
following result : 

Date of Blamite Invasion, 2348 B. C. 

First Dynasty of eight Median (Elamite) kings, . 224 

2124 B. C. 
Second Dynasty of eleven Median (Elamite) 

kings (48), 148 

1976 B. C. 
Third Dynasty of forty-nine Chaldean kings, . . 458 

^518 B.C. 
Fourth Dynasty of nine Arabian kings, 245 

1273 B. C. 
Fifth Dynasty of forty Babylonian kings, .... 526 

Beginning of reign of Nabonassar, 747 B. C. 

After mentioning the nine Arabian kings, whose 
dynasty came to a close in the year 1273 B. C, Eu- 
sebius also mentioned Semiramis, who reigned over 
the Assyrians; and some Assyriologists have, there- 
fore, placed her at the head of the succeeding dynasty, 
and termed its forty kings "Assyrians." This assump- 
tion is not borne out by the monuments, but is flatly 
contradicted by the known facts of Babylonian and 
Assyrian history. The first eight Elamite kings, 



History of Ancient Egypt 539 

called "tyrants," held their court at Shushan (Susi- 
anna) in Elam, and dominated Babylonia, Western 
Asia, and Egypt. One of their number, Kudur Nan- 
chundi, about 2280 B. C, carried off the image of 
Nana, or Ishtar, from Erech to Shushan, where it 
remained 1,635 years, until that city was captured by 
Assurbanipal in his eighth expedition, which could 
not have been earlier than 645 B. C, for Saulmugina 
(Samuges, Saosduchinu), his brother, who reigned 
over Babylon from 667 B. C. to 647 B. C, was over- 
thrown and killed in his sixth expedition. 

The eleven Elamite kings, who reigned one hun- 
dred and forty-eight years, probably resided in Baby- 
lonia, but were tributary to the king in Elam. A 
succession of eleven kings in one hundred and forty- 
eight years indicates an uncertain tenure of office, de- 
pendent on some paramount power. 

A change of dynasty took place 1976 B. C, when 
the Elamite kings were succeeded by native Chal- 
deans, and it was shortly after this revolution that 
Abraham left Ur, and removed to Haran of Mesopo- 
tamia. 

About 192 1 B. C. the expedition of Kudur-lagomer 
and his associate kings took place. At this time the 
Chaldean kings were still subject to the Hamite rulers 
in Elam. The Canaanites had served Kudur-lagomer, 
king of the Elamites, twelve years; but in the thir- 
teenth year they revolted from him, and in the four- 
teenth year the Elamite monarch, with his tributary 
kings, among whom was Amraphel, king of Baby- 
lonia, invaded Canaan, reduced the rebellious kings 



540 



A Self-Verifying Chronological 



to submission, ravaged the country to the plain of 
Pharan in the wilderness, and carried off all the sub- 
stance of the smitten people. 

In the time of Amenophis IV these Chaldean 
kings were still ruling in Babylonia, and they con- 
tinued to rule until within twenty-seven years of the 
Exodus, when they were succeeded by an Arabian 
dynasty. 

From the accession of Sennacherib, 704 B. C, the 
"Canon of Ptolemy" and the extracts from Berosus 
compare as follows : 



Ptolemy, 
ist Interregnum, 

Belibu, 

Aparanadiu, . . 
Regebelu, . . , 
Mesesemordaku, 
2d Interregnum, 
Asaradinu, . . . 
Saosduchinu, . . 
Kinneladanu, . . 
Nabopolasaru, . 
Nabokolasaru, . 
Illoarudamu, . . 
Nerigassolassaru, 
Nabonadiu, . . . 
Kyru, . . . . ■ 
Kambysu, . . . 
Dareiu, 



Berosus. 



2-704 B. C. 

3-702 B. C. 

6-699 B. C. 

1-693 B. C. 

4-692 B. C. 

8-688 B. C. 
13-680 B. C. 
20-667 B. C. 
22-647 B. C. 
21-625 B. C. 
43-604 B. C. 

2-561 B. C. 

4-559 B. C. 
17-555 B. C. 

9-538 B. C. 

8-529 B. C. 
36-521 B. C. 



Sennacherib, . . 24-704 B. C. 



Asaradan (5+8), 
Samuges, . . . 
Sardanapalus, . 
Nabopalassoru, 
Nabocodrossoru, 
Amilmar oduch ( i 
Neglisarus, . . 
Nabonedus, . . 
Cyrus, .... 
Cambyses, . . . 
Darius, .... 



. 13-680 B. C. 
. 21-667 B. C. 
. 21-646 B. C. 
. 21-625 B. C. 
43-604 B.C. 
2) 2-561 B. C. 
. 4-559 B.C. 

• 17-555 B. C. 

• 9-538 B.C. 
. 8-529 B.C. 
. 36-521 B. C. 



Saosduchinu is a corruption of Saulmugina, the 
brother of Assurbanipal, who was appointed king of 
Babylon, and reigned from 667 B. C. to his death, 
which occurred 647 B. C. 

Kinneladanu is Sardanapalus; that is, Assurbani- 
pal, the ''brother" of Saulmugina. 



History of Ancient Egypt 541 

During the twenty-four years of Sennacherib — 
that is, from 704 to 680 B. C. — Babylon was governed 
by rulers set up and deposed by the Assyrian monarch, 
among them his son Assardan, or "Aparadinu" (a 
corruption of Assaradinu). Mardok-empalu — that is, 
Marduk-Baladan — began to reign 721 B. C, and was 
succeeded by Sarkona, 709 B. C, showing that he was 
appointed by Sarkon, when the latter became king of 
Assyria, and governed Babylonia in his name. 

Comparing the reigns of the Babylonian and As- 
syrian kings, we find the following points of agree- 
ment: 



• • -747-733) 

• • • 733-731 \ 
»rti, . 731-726 J 



Nabonassaru, 

Nadiu, 733-731 1^ Tiglath Pileser, 

Xinzirukai Poru, 

Ilulaiu, 726-721 Shalmaneser, 

Mardukempalu, . • 721-7091 Sar-kon-a, . 

Sarkeanu, 709-704 J 

(Sennacherib) Sennacherib, 

Assaradinu, .... 680-667 Assar-adin, . 
Saosduchinu, . . . 667-647 -» ^gsar-banipal 
Kinneladinu, . . . 647-625 j 



. 744-726 

. 726-721 

. 721-704 

. 704-680 
. 680-667 



667-625 



We have seen that the ''Canon of Ptolemy" coin- 
cides throughout with the absolute astronomical dates 
of the Egyptians, and we now see that the numbers 
of Berosus subsequent to the Era of Nabonidus, 747 
B. C, agree with the ''Canon of Ptolemy" and the 
chronological lists of the Assyrians, which are sup- 
ported by several eclipses of the sun. It results that 
the numbers of Berosus are also derived from astro- 
nomical observations. Now, as Berosus, who had 
access to the monuments, annals, histories, chrono- 
logical lists, and astronomical observations of the 



542 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

Babylonians, did not place any of the historical kings 
further back than 2348 B. C, his date for the Median 
invasion, it seems strange that modern Assyriologists, 
with the meager and fragmentary materials at their 
disposal, should presume to fix the reign of Naram- 
sin, for instance, at 3750 B. C. I am convinced that 
this king, who belongs to the Sin or Chons series, 
reigned at, or shortly after, 1824 B. C. As the Baby- 
lonians and Assyrians derived their notions of astron- 
omy and the sciences generally from the Egyptians, 
it is probable that the titles of their kings were influ- 
enced, to a greater or less extent, by the Sothiac 
months in which their respective reigns happened 
to fall. 

Thus, according to Rawlinson, Bel-sumili-kapu, 
who was called the "founder" of the Assyrian king- 
dom on a genealogical tablet, means "Bel, the left- 
handed," from sumili, left, and kapu, hand. This is 
equivalent to Ra reversing his course at the summer 
solstice (ian ah), and points to the epoch of Phar-em- 
hat, 2064 B. C. According to Berosus, this date is 
sixty years after the beginning of the Second Dynasty, 
and agrees with the Mosaic account, which places the 
building of Nineveh after the foundation of the Baby- 
lonian kingdom by NImrod. 

Nin, or NInip, the Assyrian Hercules, corresponds 
to Horus, the "Powerful Bull" (Ka-necht), and is often 
called pal-Assur, "son of Assur," just as Horus is 
called sa Hits-ir, "son of Osiris." In the form "Pal- 
uziri," the Egyptian name appears unchanged. The 
month of Thoth was sacred to the youthful Horus. 



History of Ancient Egypt 543 

Is it owing to chance that between 1324 B. C. and 
1204 B. C. we find such titles as Tiglath-nin, Nin-pal- 
uziri, etc.? 

In Nineveh there was, beside the temple of Nin, an 
ancient temple of Ishtar, the "great mother," the 
Assyrian counterpart of Isis, the mother of Har- 
pocrates (Har-pa-chrat). George Smith discovered 
among the ruins of the palace of Shalmaneser I, at 
Nineveh, a votive dish belonging to this temple, on 
which is the following inscription : 

"Shalmaneser, the powerful king, king of nations, 
king of Assyria ; son of Vul-nirari, the powerful king, 
king of nations, king of Assyria; son of Pudiel, the 
powerful king, king of nations, king of Assyria also. 
Conqueror of ... . Niri, Lulumi .... and Muzri, who 
in the service of Ishtar (Isis), his lady, has marched 
and has no rival, who in the midst of battle has fought 
and has conquered their lands. When the temple of 
Ishtar, the lady of Nineveh, my lady, which Shamsi- 
Vul (follower of Vul), the prince who went before me, 
had built, and which had decayed, and which Assur- 
ubalid, my father, had restored; that temple in the 
course of my time had decayed, and I rebuilt it from 
its foundation to its roof." 

A brick discovered on the same spot by Smith 
has this inscription : 

"Tiglathi-Nin, king of nations, son of Shalma- 
neser, king of nations also, who completed the temple 
of Ishtar, the powerful lady." 

Assur-uballid was a contemporary of Amenophis 
IV, whose reign extended from 1658 to 1646 B. C, 
consequently his reign fell in the Sothiac month of 



544 ^ Self- Verifying Chronological 

Pa-uoni, 1704 to 1584 B. C, which was sacred to Isis 
and Osiris. This king, therefore, felt called upon to 
restore the temple of Ishtar, because she was pre- 
eminently "his lady.'' Shamsi-Vul, the son of the 
Babylonian King Ismi-dagon, built this temple. 
After it had stood six hundred and forty-one years, it 
was torn down on account of its ruined condition, and 
sixty years after this it was rebuilt by Shalmaneser I, 
V\^ho reigned in the Sothiac month of Mesori, 1464 
B. C. to 1324 B. C. Shalmaneser found the temple 
of Ishtar again decayed since the time of "his father,'' 
Assur-uballid, and rebuilt it from its foundation to 
its roof. Could a better or more convincing proof 
of his epoch be furnished than this? He died before 
he had entirely completed the temple, and his son, 
Tiglathi-Nin, who headed the new cycle, completed it. 
Shalmaneser, in the above inscription, calls him- 
self "son of Vulnirari, son of Pudil;" and Vulnirari 
calls himself ''son of Pudiel, grandson of Vulnirari, 
and great-grandson of Assur-uballid." Assyriologists 
have inferred from this that these kings represent a 
genealogical succession from father to son, and have 
placed Assur-uballid at circa 1400 B. C. We have just 
seen that Shalmaneser calls Assur-uballid *'his father," 
although he preceded him by several centuries. In 
these inscriptions the word "father" is often used in 
the sense of ancestor — the most distinguished ances- 
tors being selected as "fathers," while the insignificant 
ones were passed over in silence, and even omitted 
from the genealogical tables. We have seen that 
Assur-uballid, of whom Vulnirari says, "The protec- 



History of Ancient Egypt 545 

tion and alliance of his kingdom extended afar off like 
a mountain," and who was described as one of the 
most powerful of the Assyrian kings, restored the 
temple of Ishtar, and that it had again decayed by the 
time of Shalmaneser I. This would hardly have been 
the case if only sixty or seventy years had intervened 
between these two kings, but harmonizes perfectly 
with a period of two centuries or more. George 
Smith, as late as 1875, placed Buzur-Assur immedi- 
ately before Assur-uballid, and fixed his date at 1420- 
1400 B. C, while he placed Assur-nadin-achi about 
1550 B. C. We now know that Assur-nadin-achi was 
the father and immediate predecessor of Assur- 
uballid. The latter expressly mentions his father, 
Assur-nadin-achi, in a letter to Amenophis IV. 

A. H. Sayce, referring to Professor Hommel's 
recent work, "Aus der Babylonischen Alterthums- 
kunde" (Academy of September 7, 1895, P- ^^9)' says: 

"Perhaps one of the most interesting facts brought 
to light by the Professor is, that Ine-Sin, who was 
king of Ur about 2500 B. C. (?), or earlier, and in 
whose reign portions of the great Babylonian work 
on astronomy were compiled, subdued both Kimas, 
or Central Arabia, and Zemar in Phoenicia (see Gen. 
X, 18), while his daughter was patesi, or high priestess, 
of Anzan in Elam and Mark-haskhi in Northern Syria, 
where the Hittites were already astir. Still more in- 
teresting is the discovery made by Mr. Pinches of a 
tablet recording the war waged by Khammurabi of 
Babylon (B. C. 2250) against Eri-aku, or Arioch, of 
Larsa, and his Elamite allies, which ended in the rise 
of a united monarchy in Babylon. Among the op- 
35 



546 A Self-Verifying Chronological 

ponents of Khammurabi mention is made of Kudur- 
lagomer, the Elamite, Eri-aku (Arioch), and Tud- 
khal, the Tidal of the Book of Genesis." 

The same author (Academy of November ^^^y 
1895) says further: 

''Mr. Pinches' latest discovery is a highly inter- 
esting one, and throws fresh light on the intimate 
relations that existed between Babylonia and Syria 
in the age of Abraham. Professor Hommel may yet 
prove right in his suggestion that the defeat of 
Chedor-laomer and his alUes by the Hebrew patriarch 
was the ultimate cause of Khammurabi's success in 
overthrowing Arioch and the Elamite supremacy over 
Babylonia, and in establishing a united and independ- 
ent Babylonian kingdom." 

In the same article of September 7, 1895, Sayce 
asserts that the name of the Hyksos ('Aam-u) god 
Sutech is Kassite, and that the suggestion of Brugsch 
that the Hyksos came from the mountains of Elam is 
confirmed. A Babylonian seal cylinder (No. 391) in 
the Metropolitan Museum of New York bears an in- 
scription which shows that it belonged to Uzi-Sutach, 
son of the Kassite (Kassu), the servant of Burna- 
buryas, a king of the Kassite (?) Dynasty, who ruled 
over Babylonia B. C. 1400 (?). The name Sutach is 
preceded by the determinative of divinity. We can 
infer that the Hyksos (?) leaders were of Kassite 
origin. The Hyksos invasion of Egypt formed part 
of the general movement which led to the rise of the 
Kassite Dynasty in Babylonia. 

Thus Professor Sayce places Ine-Sin at 2500 B. C, 



History of Ancient Egypt 547 

Hammurabi at 2250 B. C, and Burna-buryas at 1400 
B. C. All of these dates are notoriously incorrect, 
and show that modern Babylonian chronology prior 
to about 930 B. C. can hardly be termed a science, but 
is principally conjecture and guess-work. 

We have seen that Burna-buryas was reigning 
about 1658 B. C. The connection of Hammurabi, 
king of Babylon, with Kudur-laomer, king of Elam, 
Arioch, king of Larsa, and Tidal, king of foreign 
tribes (sat-ii), shows that he was Amraphel, king of 
Shinar, a contemporary of Abraham, and, therefore, 
reigned about 1921 B. C. Ine-Sin, as his name indi- 
cates, must be placed after 1824 B. C. We should 
bear in mind that Ham is the Egyptian name for the 
yellow Asiatic, or Mongolian, race; but that these 
people, when they emerged from behind the moun- 
tains of Elam, were known in Asia as KashI, Hittites, 
Canaanites, etc. They were called Akkadians, or 
Elamites, not because they were Medes, but because, 
after having roamed over the boundless plains of Asia 
for untold centuries, they crossed Persia and appeared 
to come from that country. Manetho was well aware 
that they were a ''people of ignoble birth," who came 
from the ''eastern parts." 

Berosus gives his First and Second Dynasties 
three hundred and seventy-two years. Manetho fixes 
the 'Aamu domination over Egypt at five hundred and 
eleven years. Thus we need not wonder to find West- 
ern Asia, including Canaan, completely Hamitized by 
1837 B. C. 

The Assyrians, in my opinion, originally came 



548 A Self-Verifying Chronological 

from Europe, and settled in the alluvial plains of 
Babylonia by the side of yellow Asiatics. They were 
all overwhelmed by the great Hamite flood. Under 
the native Chaldean Dynasty, which was founded 
about 1976 B. C, large numbers of these so-called 
Shemites emigrated to Assyria and Mesopotamia. 
An examination of the ancient table adopted by 
Moses will show that the Shemites and Japhites of 
Western Asia were successive overflows of Eu- 
ropeans; for the ''sons of Japheth," from the nation 
of the Medes and Persians in the East to the lonians 
in the west, were seated immediately north of — that 
is, behind — the Shemites. 

The most ancient inscriptions of Babylonia men- 
tion four races (lit. ''four tongues"), which seem to 
have been: (i) the aborigines, or Chaldeans; (2) the 
Shemites; (3) the Japhites; and (4) the Elamites. 

Before the Flood the country was divided into 
numerous petty principalities, each considerable city 
being independent. There was no kingdom to chron- 
icle, no government claiming universal dominion like 
that in Egypt, no civilization worthy of the name. 
In the time of Kudur-laomer, king of Elam, Baby- 
lonia was still divided up into several distinct king- 
doms, and It would be a great mistake to compute 
these contemporary local dynasties as consecutive. 

We might as well swell the period between the 
Twelfth and Eighteenth Dynasties of Egypt from 753 
to 1,255 years, by including in the chronological series 
the contemporary Fourteenth and Seventeenth Dy- 
nasties. It will prove to be just as fatal to run amuck 



History of Ancient Egypt 549 

of Berosus, as it has been to disregard the numbers 
of Manetho. As in Egypt, the sun had numerous dis- 
tinctive titles to mark his position in the Sothiac year. 
We have seen that Bel, Anu, Hea, and Ishtar pre- 
sided over separate quarters of the year, and that 
these titles are equivalent to Ra, Turn, Thoth, and 
Hathor. In addition to these, we find Ninip, Mero- 
dach, Nergal, etc., and it would repay the trouble to 
ascertain in what relation these stood to Horus, the 
Powerful Bull, Shu^ Menthu, Harmachis, etc. 

Bel seems to be the chief title of the Kassite divin- 
ity Sutech, whose emblem was the serpent, and it is 
significant that he was the principal deity of the Baby- 
lonian Cushites. The Assyrians, on the contrary, re- 
fused to accept Sutech as their "lord god;" but wor- 
shiped Assur, or Osiris, as their "chief god," and the 
effect of this was that, in the course of time, many of 
the distinctive attributes of Horus, Menthu, and Ra 
were transferred to Assur. In some respects, Assur 
seems to have been recognized as the divinity itself, 
for he is represented by the winged globe inclosing 
the head of man. It is to the lasting credit of the 
Assyrians that they discarded the serpent, and 
adopted the primitive Egyptian emblem of the Word. 

EPOCH-REIGNS OF MANETHO'S THIRD 
CYCLE 

The Manethonian Lists which have reached us 
through Africanus, Eusebius, and Syncellus, were 
originally dynastic — that is, gave the entire reigns 
without regard to Sothiac divisions; but, notwith- 



550 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

standing this fact, a combination of favorable acci- 
dents has, nevertheless, revealed all the epoch-reigns 
of Manetho's Third Sothiac Cycle, beginning 1324 
B. C, and ending 339 B. C. 

As the epoch-reigns, supported by the distinctive 
epoch-titles, extend in an almost unbroken line from 
4244 B. C. to 1324 B. C, it is evident that the Sothiac 
system, as a zvhole, was subjected to a "crucial test'' 
the very moment it came in contact with well-known 
dates fixed or established in other and independent 
ways. This "crucial test," which can now be applied 
by means of the "absolute dates" afforded by the 
epoch-reigns, it has borne, and ever w'll bear, tri- 
umphantly. 

EPOCH OF THOTH, 1324 B. C. 

Beginning at the Era of Menophres, 1324 B. C, 
which is also the beginning of the first Sothiac month 
called Thoth, we find the epoch-reign of Athothis, 
who reigned twenty-nine years after the epoch. This 
important era was indelibly fixed in several ways. 
The short reign of Ta-iir-et, "Thouris" (the standing 
female hippopotamus carrying the crocodile on her 
back), was emblematic of the close of the cycle and 
last month of the year. We need not repeat that the 
standing female hippopotamus was the symbol of 
a completed Sothiac year, the crocodile, the symbol of 
a Sothiac month, and that the two could be thus 
joined only at the end of a Sothiac year. This is the 
same identical old hippopotamus that devoured 
Menes, the first king of Egypt, about 4244 B. C, 



Hi ST OR Y OF Ancient Eg ypt 551 

and we need not be surprised to find that she de- 
voured King Ramesses, who mounted the double 
throne of Egypt about 1331 B. C, in the same vora- 
cious manner. Fortunately, both of these kings were 
''re-born" like Jonas and "re-crowned" {nem-chau) 
under the significant and appropriate epoch-title 
Athothis, ''Offspring of Thoth." Ramesses com- 
memorated the event by inserting in his official car- 
touch Cha-em-uas, "Crowned in Thebes." 

The forger of the pseudo-Sothis List placed Atho- 
this at the head of the space left blank by the re- 
moval of the seven kings of the Twentieth Dynasty, 
where he now appears as "No. 59 Athothis, who is 
also Psusanos," with twenty-eight years. We have 
already seen how and why Athothis was confounded 
with Athoris, one of the epoch-titles of Psusannos I, 
1084 B. C. The sa ra title of this king, inclosed in 
the shield, is very elaborate; it reads: "Ramesses, 
Chamois, Miamen, Hyk-on-nufer." It may be that 
he, instead of Ramesses III, was the Rhampsinitus 
of Herodotus; for, just as Ramesses Hyk-on became 
Rhampsakes, Ramesses Hyk-on-miter, by omitting 
hyk or haky would naturally resolve itself into Rhamp- 
sinuti. 

The two epoch-kings of the Twentieth Dynasty 
are now known as Ramesses XIII and Ramesses IX. 
I have selected the former as the epoch-king Atho- 
this because he is the only king of this dynasty who 
is known to have borne the title "Menophres" (Mer- 
na-pKrd), and because the location of his tomb, the 
length of his reign, the position of his inscriptions. 



552 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

and the portions of the Temple of Chonsu completed 
or erected by him, all mark him as the immediate 
successor of the sons of Ramesses III. In the rooms 
of the sanctuary of the Temple of Chonsu^ the portion 
first built, we find the names of Ramesses III, Ram- 
esses IV, and Ramesses Menophres. We select the 
following inscription from Baedeker : 

"Ramesses etc. (Menophres) erected this building 
in the house of his father Chonsu, the lord of Thebes, 
and built this temple in everlasting workmanship of 
good limestone and sandstone." 

The hall supported by eight columns, in front of 
the sanctuary and immediately behind the peristyle 
court, was erected and decorated by this king, show- 
ing that he was the first, and not the last, king of 
this dynasty. 

We have seen that the Babylonians placed Anu 
over the last quarter of the year, who, as I contend, 
was derived from the Egyptian Anu or On. In 
IvCpsius' "Book of Kings," No. 506, giving the titles 
of Ramesses VI, there is a procession of so-called 
gods and goddesses representing the Sothiac year, at 
the beginning of which stands the hieroglyphic sym- 
bol Anu or On, followed by Set, Harpokrates, and 
Amen-hi-chopesh-ef. Amen, with the Chopesh in his 
hand, stands bridging the chasm between the last 
quarter of the closing year and the first quarter of 
the coming year, a Theban notion, pure and simple. 
Thus the titles Hyk-on and Hyk-on-iiuter belong to the 
last quarter of the Second Cycle. The fact that Meno- 



History of Ancient Egypt 553 

phres assumed this title as king indicates that he 
mounted the throne before the era 1324 B. C. The 
title Amen-hi-cJiopesh-ef y borne by several of these 
kings, also fixes them either just before or after this 
era. In the temple above mentioned Chonsu is repre- 
sented as a moon-god, so-called, with the crescent on 
his head, and the sidelock of youth, that is, as the 
Theban counterpart of Thoth-Hermes. This temple 
was founded by Ramesses III during the co-regency 
of his son Ramesses IV, in anticipation of the coming 
epoch of Thoth, and the latter, no doubt, expected 
to head the new era, which he might have done if 
he had lived to reign as long as his father. 

Rhampsakes can not be the rich and miserly 
Rhampsinitus described by Herodotus, for the former 
was one of the most generous and liberal-minded 
kings to be found in Egyptian history. Rhampsin- 
itus descended alive into the place called Hades 
(Amenti), and there played at dice with Ceres, some- 
times winning, at other times losings after which he 
came back again, bringing as a present from her a 
napkin of gold. This is the story as related by 
Herodotus; but Plutarch, in his "Isis and Osiris," 
tells us that it was Thoth who played with Selene. 
It was because Rhampsinitus was "re-born"' and ''re- 
crowned" as Athothis that the Egyptian priests com- 
municated to Herodotus this highly symbolized story. 

It was on account of the new Sothiac year that 
the Egyptians celebrated the festival. The two 
wolves by whom the blindfolded priest was led to 
the temple of Ceres were the twin-wolves of the 



554 ^ Self-Verifying Chronological 

winter solstice — the double-faced Janus before the 
temple of the "peace-loving" Chonsu. 

EPOCH OF^ PAOPHI, 1204 B. C. 

The epoch-king of Paophi 1204 B. C. was dis- 
tinguished by several epoch-titles, all of which were 
descriptive of the Nile. Pa-iar, "The River," or 
Phuoro, and lar-bashi, "Gushing River," or lorbasse, 
gave rise to the familiar title "King Nile." 

We will now go back to the era, place the epoch- 
reign of Athothis where it certainly belongs, allow 
one hundred and twenty years for the month of 
Thoth, and demonstrate, by simple addition, that the 
epoch of Paophi fell in the fourth year of Ramesses 
lorbasse. 

Bra of Menophres, 1324 B. C. 

Athothis, 29 

1295 B. C. 
Ramessomenes, 15 

^280 B. C. 
Ramesse Usimares, 31 

1249 B. C. 
Ramesesseos, 23 

1226 B. C. 
Ramessameno, 19 

1207 B. C. 
Ramesse lubasse, before epoch, 3 

Epoch of Paophi, 1204 B. C. 

Ramesse lubasse, as King Nile, 36 

These reigns are taken as they now stand in the 
pseudo-Sothis List, where they are numbered from 
18 to 24 inclusive. 



History of Ancient Egypt 555 

Manetho, it seems, had compared the first four 
epoch-kings of this cycle with those of the first cycle, 
owing to which fact we find this reign entered a 
second time as ''No. 60 Kenkenes," with thirty-nine 
years, in the false Sothis List. 

The title Cha-em-itas marks Ramesses IX Nofer- 
ka-ra as the epoch-king Nile. Dikaearchos, as we 
have seen, placed him four hundred and thirty-six 
years before the first Olympiad. Pliny refers to him 
as "Rhamesis who reigned when Troy was taken." 
At this time Thebes was in all her glory, and was, in 
fact, the great capital of Egypt. 

Now Thebes seems to have been the capital when 
Homer wrote the IHad, for we can safely assume that, 
if the capital had been removed to Tanis at that time, 
the poet would have mentioned the fact. 

The name Memnon mentioned by Homer is Mer- 
anien, Me-amen, slightly modified. This name was 
borne by King Nile, and was in common use among 
the kings of the Twentieth Dynasty. 

Coming back to the epoch-title Nile, we have 
seen that it was used by Eratosthenes to mark the 
epoch of Paophi 2664 B. C. The form Pa-iar, liter- 
ally "the River," is one peculiarly adapted to Egypt, 
where there is but one river. Moses, in speaking of 
Eden, which was certainly Egypt, describes it as 
watered by a river. The four outlets of this river 
were called "heads," because they emptied into the 
Mediterranean at the extreme northern boundary of 
the land, called Em-het, meaning literally "at the 
head." 



556 A Self-Verifying Chronological 

Thus the epoch-title "Phuoro" is so well authen- 
ticated, in every imaginable way, that it may be pro- 
nounced notorious. 

:ePOCH OF ATHYR, 1084 B. C. 
No. 60 of the pseudo-Sothis List, corresponding 
to the Twentieth Dynasty, is "Uen-nephis" with a 
reign of forty-two years. We have already explained 
that Uon-nofer, "Perfect Being," was an epoch-title 
used to designate the month of Athyr, or Haet-har. 
Beginning at the epoch of Paophi 1204 B. C, and 
coming down to the next epoch, we find that Psu- 
sannos I, the second king of Manetho's Twenty-first 
Dynasty, who reigned forty-two years, was, in fact, 
this epoch-king. 

Bra of Paophi, .,,... 1204 B. C. 

Ramesse lorbasse, as epocti-king, 36 

T168B.C. 
Ramesse Uaphru 29 

1 139 B.C. 
Smendes (Sa-nienthu)^ 26 

1113B. C. 
Psusannos, before epoch, 29 

Epoch of Athyr, 1084 B. C. 

Psusannos, after epoch, as " 'Athoris," 14 

1070 B. C. 

We have seen how the twenty-eight years, x 
months, and x days of Psusannos, before the epoch, 
were converted into Athothis; No. 43 of the pseudo- 
Sothis List, corresponding to the latter part of the 
Eighteenth Dynasty, to wit : " 'Athoris,'' with twenty- 
nine years, is this portion of the reign. In the List 



History of Ancient Egypt 557 

of Africanus the last fourteen years of this reign 
have been substituted for the thirty-five years of 
Psusannos II. Thus we have the entire reign, and 
both fragments of the reign, and two unmistakable 
epoch-titles. 

Venus, the star of Isis and Osiris, was known as 
Hathor on the eastern horizon. One of the distinctive 
titles of Hathor was Pa-nozem, or, as it was after- 
wards pronounced, Pi-notem, meaning ''The Gentle 
One." It will be seen, therefore, that Pi-notem is an 
epoch-title itself. 

The kings of the Twenty-first Dynasty rarely in- 
closed their titles in the customary royal cartouches. 
It seems that they held their court at Tanis, and 
ranked as high-priests of Amen at Thebes. I have 
already given my reasons for believing that they were 
subject to the Ethiopian kings. They were not 
usurpers, but merely reigned in the place of the un- 
fortunate Ramessids, who had been deposed by the 
Ethiopians. A criminally licentious and voluptuous 
mode of living brought down upon the last kings of 
the Twentieth Dynasty its own self-inflicted punish- 
ment. 

EPOCH OF CHOIAHK, 946 B. C. 

The reign of Osarkon II Sa-bastet, who was the 
epoch-king of Choiahk 946 B. C, was transferred to 
the pseudo-Sothis List, where it now appears as "No. 
45-Susakeim" with thirty-four years. This name is 
a curious blending of Sesak (Sheshank) and Osarkon. 
In tracing the chronology down from the last epoch, 
we must not forget that the Twenty-first Dynasty 



558 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

reigned, altogether, one hundred and thirty years, 
from 1 139 B. C. to 1009 B. C. The epoch-king 
Psusannos has forty-one or forty-two years — that is, 
forty-one years, x months, etc. — so that the present 
apportionment of the parts as twenty-nine and four- 
teen years, respectively, is nearly two years in excess 
of the true number. 

We do not know how the extra months and days 
of the succeeding reigns have been apportioned; 
therefore, it is better to reduce the reign of Psusannos 
to the required forty-one years by making his epoch- 
reign twelve instead of fourteen years. 

Beginning at the last epoch, the month of Athyr 
can be filled out from the lists, as follows : 

Bpoch of Athyr, 1084 B. C. 

Psusannos, as 'Athoris, 12 

1072 B. C. 
Nephercheres, 4 

"1068 B.C. 
Amenophthis, 9 

1059 B. C. 
Osorchor, 6 

1053 B. C. 
Psinaches, 9 

1044 B. C. 
Psusannos II, 35 

1009 B. C. 
Sesonchis (Shishak), 21 

"988 B.C. 
Osarkon (15-1, for 14 years, x months, etc.), ... 14 

~974B.C. 
Takelothis (x months and x days), i 

"973 1. C. 



History of Ancient Egypt 559 

Brought forward, 973 B. C. 

Osarkon II, before epoch, 9 

Epoch of Choiahk, 964 B. C. 

Osarkon II, after epoch, as " Petubastis,' 25 

~939B.C. 

Here again, I am happy to say, the entire reign 
of thirty-four years, the two fragments of nine and 
twenty-five years each, and the ancient epoch-titles, 
have all been preserved and transmitted to us through 
ignorance alone. We have seen how the author of 
the false Sothis List made use of the entire reign to 
partially fill the blank left in the Twentieth Dynasty. 

Eusebius, in his endeavor to reduce the totals of 
these dynasties, substituted 'Tetubastis" with twenty- 
five years for Petsibastis with forty years, at the head 
of the Twenty-third Dynasty, and Osorthon, "the 
Egyptian Hercules" ( !) with nine years for the second 
reign of that dynasty. 

When Horus crossed the equator on the first day 
of Choiahk, he entered the northern hemisphere as 
the "powerful bull" (ka-iiecJit) , awakening the vege- 
table world to life; hence he was compared to Her- 
cules and to Min, Pan, and Bastet. It was in com- 
memoration of this great epoch that Osarkon H 
erected the beautiful "festival hall" in the temple of 
Bastet, in her city of Bubastis, the ruins of which were 
recently discovered by Naville. One of the "sa ra'' 
titles assumed by this king, to wit, Sa-hastet, "Son 
of Bast," points to the same epoch. Among the 
people his epoch-title was Pa-ta-bastet, or "Petubas- 
tis," "The Gift of Bast." 



56o A Self- Verifying Chronological 

Manetho gives Shishak, the king who plundered 
Jerusalem in the fifth year of Rehoboam, twenty-one 
years; but it is possible that he reigned jointly with 
his son Osarkon I after 988 B. C, and that Manetho 
assigned the ''joint-reign" to the latter. Be this as 
it may, 988 B. C. is the most probable date for this 
celebrated Biblical event. 

EPOCH OF TYBI, 844 B. C. 

We wish to remind the reader of the lion-headed 
Tef-nuf, sometimes called Tef-teh. One of her dis- 
tinctive titles was Ta-mui-t, "The Lioness." Applied 
to a king, in the masculine gender, it would be 
Pa-mui. 

Now let us see if the king called Pa-mui is the 
epoch-king known as "Psamuis," that is, Pa-sa-mui? 

Epoch of Choiahk 964 B. C. 

Osarkon II, as Petubastis, 25 

~939B.C. 
Slieshonk II, 25 

914 B. C. 
Takelothis II, 13 

901 B. C. 
Sheshonk III, 53 

948 B. C. 
Pa-mui, before epocb, 4 

Epoch of Tybi, 844 B. C. 

Pa-mui, after epoch, as " Psamuis," 13 

"831 B. C. 

"No. 51 Psamuthis," with thirteen years, and "No. 
52 blank'' with four years, of the false Sothis List, 
represent the above fragments of this reign as split 



History of Ancient Egypt 561 

by the epoch. The forger, naturally enough, mistook 
'Tsamuis" for 'Tsamuthis." Thus the entire reign 
of Pa-miii, called Pi-mai by Brugsch, was seventeen 
years. The titles themselves are so transparent that 
they require no additional elucidation. 

EPOCH OF AMHIR, 724 B. C. 
Saites, Zet, or Sethon has received our special 
attention in the chapter devoted to the Twenty-fourth 
Dynasty. He mounted the throne as subject-king 
under Sabakon, 730 B. C, reigned six years before, 
and thirty-eight years after, this epoch, or, altogether, 
forty-four years. Beginning at the last epoch, we can 
verify these dates as follows : 

Epoch of Tybi, 844 B. C. 

Psamuis, 13 

"831 B. C. 
Sheshonk IV, 42 

"789 B.C. 
Petsabastis, 40 

749 B. C. 
Osorthon (8), 9 

740 B. C. 
Psammus [P'sa-fnuth), lo 

~^B.C. 
Zet, before epoch, 6 

Epoch of Am-hir, 724 B. C. 

Zet, after epoch, as "Amiris," 38 

~686B. C. 

The epoch-title "Rokchoris," from Rohk-ur, 

''Great Heat," like that of "Rochles," from Rohk-nez, 

"Little Heat," in the Hyksos Dynasty, has become 

notorious. In Africanus we have "Bokchoris, Saites," 

36 



562 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

(Set) with the first six years. In the false Sothis List, 
the entire reign and the last thirty-eight years still 
appear, as follows : 

No. 74. Bokchoris, 44 years 

No. 78. Amaes (Amiris), 38 years 

Eusebius has "Ameris" at the head of his Twenty- 
sixth Dynasty, but his thirty-eight years have been 
reduced to eighteen. Thus the evidence of the di- 
vision of the reign at the epoch 724 B. C. is complete, 
and the dates thereby established can be accepted as 

absolute. 

EPOCH OF PHAMBNOTH, 604 B. C. 

Is it not remarkable that we require the long-lost 

epoch-reign of Zet to lead us down to the epoch of 

Phamenoth 604 B. C. in the eighth year of Nechao's 

reign? Notice how this reign supports and verifies 

the chronology of this important and interesting 

period : 

Epoch of Mechir, 724 B. C. 

Zet, as epoch-king "Amiris," 38 

~686 B. C. 
Tephnachtis, 7 

"670, B. C. 
Nechepsos, 6 

"6^ B.C. 
Nechao I, 8 

"665 B.C. 
Psammetichos I, 54 

~6iiB.C. 
Nechao II, before epoch, 7 

Epoch of Phamenoth, 604 B. C. 

Nechao II, after epoch, 9 

"I95B.C. 



History of Ancient Egypt 563 

Remember that 604 B. C. was the summer sol- 
stice of the Sothiac year. The sun was am-hat, ''at 
the heart," or middle, of his annual course. We have 
already explained the titles Uah-ab-ra and Nem-ah-ra. 
The division of Nechao's reign by the epoch of 604 
B. C. is still shown by the lists. "No. 83, Nechao Pha- 
raoh,*' with nine years, of the pseudo-Sothis List, is 
the original epoch-reign. The six or seven years before 
the epoch appear in the Lists of Africanus and Euse- 
bius. Thus the date 611 B. C. for the accession of 
Neko, the Pharaoh mentioned in the Bible in con- 
nection with the Jewish king Josiah, is absolute, be- 
cause astronomically fixed. 

EPOCH OF PHARMUTHI, 484 B. C. 

We are now upon firm historical ground, and can 
use the astronomical Canon of Ptolemy as a check. 
Beginning at the epoch 604 B. C, a simple compu- 
tation will show that Xerxes commenced to reign 485 
B. C, or just one year before the epoch of Pharmuthi 
484 B. C. 

Epoch of Phamenoth, 604 B. C. 

Nechao, epoch-reign, 9 

595 B. C. 
Psammetichos, ''another^" 6 

589 B. C. 
Uaphris, 19 

570 B. C. 
Amasis, 44 

526 B. C. 



564 A Self- Verifying Chronological 

Brought forward, 526 B. C, 

Psammecherites, ,,,... i 

Beginning of Persian Dynasty 525 B. C. 

Cambyses, from his fifth year, 4 

521 B. C. 
Daraios, 36 

485 B. C. 
Xerxes, before epoch of Pharmuthi, i 

Epoch of Pharmuthi, 484 B. C. 

Xerxes, after epoch, 20 

464 B. C. 

There was no room for the epoch-title "Psamu- 
this" among the well-known kings of the Persian 
Dynasty, and, for this reason, Psamuthis was substi- 
tuted for Psammetichos II. But we also find Psam- 
uthis with one year in the Twenty-ninth Dynasty of 
Africanus. Eusebius enters the reign before the 
epoch in the same dynasty, first, as "Psammuthis" 
with one year, and second, as "Muthis" with one year. 
Thus it is evident from the two forms, Psammuthis 
and Muthis, that Manetho not only gave the epoch- 
title itself, but explained that it meant "the son of 
Muth." 

Now the Canon of Ptolemy, which is "astronom- 
ical," that is, adapted to the Sothiac epochs, likewise 
places the accession of Xerxes at 485 B. C. 

EPOCH OF PACHONS, 364 B. C. 
This is the last epoch mentioned by our trust- 
worthy guide Manetho, for his work dates from the 



History of Ancient Egypt 565 

accession of Ptolemy Philadelphus, 287 B. C. We 
will now begin where we left off : 

Epoch of Pharmuthi, 484 B. C. 

Xerxes, after epoch 20 

464 B. C. 
Artabanos (7 months + x months of "Magoi"), i 

463 B. C. 
Artaxerxes, 41 

422 B. C. 
Xerxes (2 months) Sogdianos (7 months), .... i 

^ 421 B. C. 

Darius, 19 

402 B. C. 

Twenty-eighth Dynasty (Amy rtaios?), 6 

396 B. C. 
Nepherites, 6 

390 B. C. 
Achoris, 13 

377 B. C. 
Nepherites, i 

376 B.C. 
Nektarebes, before epoch, 12 

Epoch of Pachons, 364 B. C. 

Nektarebes, after epoch, as "Amyrtaios," .... 6 

358 B. C. 
Tecs, 2 

356 B.C. 
Nektanebos {Necht-neb-eJ)y 18 

End of Thirtieth Dynasty, 339 B. C. 



566 A Self-Verifying Chronological 

The epoch-title "Amyrtaios," which is the same 
commented on in the Fifth Dynasty, was, by mistake, 
transferred to the Twenty-eighth Dynasty . It is a 
title applicable to Chonsu, the "peace-loving" son of 
Amen and Muth. Wherever the reigns were divided 
by Sothiac epochs some traces of the fact remain in 
the lists. In many instances these epochs have been 
the direct cause of the confusion and disturbance ap- 
parent in the lists. The later dynasties, showing 
reigns in months, such as those of Artabanos, Sog- 
dianos, Nepherites, etc., will serve to illustrate how 
the "extra months," now wanting in the earlier 
lists, necessarily afifect a computation according to 
Sothiac epochs of one hundred and twenty years. 
Our work ends here, but the presence of such 
titles as Ptolemy Philadelphus, in the month 
of Pachons, and Ptolemy Euergetes, in 
the month of Payni, demonstrates 
that the Ptolemies themselves 
continued to rule accord- 
ing to the time-hon- 
ored Sothiac 
system. 



INDEX 

Page 

Preface, 3 

Introduction, ii 

PART I 
The Sothiac System of Chronoi^ogy and the Chrono- 

I.OGICAI, Lists of Manetho, 23 

The TWEI.VE Months, 31 

The Signs of the Zodiac Derived from the Symboi^s 

OF THE Egyptian Months, 48 

Formation of the Solar System, 56 

Present State of Egyptian Chronoi,ogy, 66 

" The Sothiac Year," 71 

Manetho the Historian, 76 

The Chronoi,ogicai, Numbers of Josephus, 84 

Manetho's Generai, Chronologicai, Scheme, 91 

Manetho's Grand Totai, of 3,555 Years, 97 

PART II 
A SEI.F- Verifying Chronoi^ogicai, History of Ancient 
Egypt, from the Foundation of the Kingdom to 

THE BEGINNING OF THE PERSIAN DYNASTY— A BoOK 

OF Startling Discoveries— Grand Totals of Man- 
etho's First Book, 99 

"Ten Thinite Kings Who Reigned (350) Years," .... 103 
Manetho's First Dynasty of Eight Thinite Kings, • . 104 

The Epoch-Reigns of the First Dynasty, 118 

Manetho's Second and Third Dynasties, 125 

Epoch-Kings of the Third Dynasty, 149 

Manetho's Fourth Dynasty, , 155 

The Chufus, 167 

567 



568 Index 

Page 
Epoch-Kings of ^he Fourth Dynasty. (Addendum, 1898), 178 

Fifth Dynasty of Eight Memphitf Kings, 186 

Epoch-Reigns of the Fifth Dynasty, 192 

Sixth Dynasty of Six Mfmphite Kings, 195 

Sixth Dynasty of Six Ei^Kphantinkan Kings, . . . • .195 

Seventh and Eighth Memphite Dynasties, 210 

Ninth and Tenth Dynasties of Heraki,eopoi,is, . • . .214 

Ei<Eventh Dynasty of Thebes, 216 

Tabi,e of Karnak— IvEft Hai,f, 221 

E1.EVENTH Dynasty, from Tabi,e of Karnak, 229 

Chu-mer-na-ptah and Sem-su Har-pa-chrat, 235 

The Grand Totai^s of Ninety-six Kings and 2,121 Years 

OF Manetho's Second Book, 237 

TABI.E of Twei/FTh Dynasty, 247 

TWEI.FTH Dynasty of Eight Theban Kings, 248 

Intervai, Between the Twei^fth and Eighteenth Dy- 
nasties, 255 

The Extracts of Barbarus Scai^igeri from Africanus, 263 

Location of the Pyramids, 267 

Thirteenth Dynasty of Sixteen Diospoi^itan Kings, . 269 

Turin Papyrus, 272 

The Hyksos Invasion, 276 

The Ai,i,egory of the Fi<ood, 286 

Fifteenth Dynasty of Ei^even Diospoi^itan Kings, . . 298 
Sixteenth Dynasty of Thirty-two Thebaid Kings, . . 306 

The Hyksos Dynasty of Six Kings, 315 

Restored List of Hyksos Dynasty— New Empire, . • .335 

SoTHiAC List of Eighteenth Dynasty, 339 

The Eighteenth Dynasty of Sixteen Diospowtan Kings, 340 

Seti, Sethos, Sethosis, or Sesostris, 354 

Nineteenth Dynasty of Seven Diospoi^itan Kings, • . 370 
Nineteenth Dynasty of Five Diospoi^itan Kings, • • -371 
Epoch-Reigns of Manetho's Second Sothiac Cyci,e, • • 387 



Index 569 

Page 

The Period of Joseph's Administration in Egypt, in 

The Light of the Tei.-Ei.-Amarna Ci.ay Tabi^ets, 391 

" The Pharaoh of the Oppression," 425 

The Pharaoh of the Exodus, 434 

The Ia-nim, or Ionians, 454 

The 1,050 Years of Manetho's Third Book, 461 

Twentieth Dynasty of Seven Diospoi^itan Kings, . . . 463 

Twenty-first Dynasty of Seven Tanite Kings 470 

Twenty-second Dynasty of Nine Bubastite Kings, . . 477 
Twenty-third Dynasty of Three Tanite Kings, . . . .492 
Twenty-fourth Dynasty of Four Saite Kings, .... 497 

Twenty-fifth Dynasty of Ethiopian Kings, 512 

Twenty-sixth Dynasty of Six Saite Kings, . . • • • -519 

BABY1.0NIAN and Assyrian Chronoi^ogy, 534 

Epoch-Reigns of Manetho's Third Cyci.e, 549 

Epoch of Thoth, 1324 B. C, 55o 

Epoch of Paophi, 1204 B. C, 554 

Epoch op Athyr, 1084 B. C, 55^ 

Epoch of Choiahk, 946 B. C, 557 

Epoch of Tybi, 844 B. C, 560 

Epoch of Amhir, 724 B. C, 561 

Epoch of Phamenoth, 604 B. C, 562 

Epoch of Pharmuthi, 484 B. C, 563 

Epoch of Pachons, 364 B. C, 564 

Index, 5^7 



<^ ' / * « s ' 







•^^^^^ 






^' A' <p o t//7 '' v^' " c,^ ^ - "-^1 1 1 Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 

J" .\v '^^ ' v^ ^- '■^X'lt^^ Treatment Date: May 2003 






a\ ^ 



":>. 



X o\,;;^;^Jft| ; ''^^. V 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: May 2003 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER |N PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 

rranhprru Tnwrishin PA 16066 



'\> 



^ ^- ^ <^ 












V^^ ^^. 



X -* 0^ 



'%^^ 



-x-^' .^ 






^^ v' 



'^ "<"'; 



,;%*■■- 
1 '-^^.^^ 






■%^' 









- ' ^.J^P^-, 




